2013 Ohio 1798
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- B&B owned the electronic video machines leased to Doerner, who operated Automile Inn in Bedford, Ohio.
- DPS found Doerner paid cash prizes to customers from the machines, which were split with B&B under a 50% arrangement.
- Doerner was charged with operating a gambling house and possession of gambling devices; the operating charge was dismissed and he pleaded no contest to a lesser charge.
- Doerner was sentenced to $750 fine, 180 days with full sentence suspended, and forfeiture of $6,500 and the machines.
- B&B moved for an order to return the property, asserting ownership and lack of compliance with forfeiture laws; the city argued the machines were illegal contraband.
- The trial court denied the motion; B&B appealed seeking return of its machines and amendment of the forfeiture order, leading to the present reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether B&B has a lawful interest warranting return of the machines | B&B owned the machines; Doerner had no interest; ownership and receipts show purchase and lease | Machines were illegal contraband gambling devices and properly forfeitable | B&B established ownership; court should order return and amend forfeiture |
| Whether the forfeiture complies with R.C. 2981.04 and third-party rights | B&B was not prejudiced by lack of notice; partnership with Doerner acknowledged | City complied with procedures; third parties may be affected | Trial court abused by denying return; third-party rights must be reflected in amended order |
| Whether B&B had to prove knowledge of illegal use to prevail | B&B did not know of illegal use; lacked knowledge guidance | Prosecution asserted B&B benefited from illicit activity | Record shows no proof of B&B knowledge; B&B entitled to reclaim under forfeiture statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. West, 8th Dist. Nos. 97391, 97900, 2013-Ohio-96 (2013) (forfeiture statutes should avoid unnecessary forfeiture)
- State v. Lilliock, 70 Ohio St.2d 23, 434 N.E.2d 723 (1982) (Ohio 1982) (interprets forfeiture principles)
- State v. Eppinger, 8th Dist. No. 95685, 2011-Ohio-2404 (2011) (plea waivers can affect forfeiture procedures)
- Cleveland v. Thorne, 2013-Ohio-1029 (8th Dist. 2013) (addressed veiled gambling schemes and avoidance of obvious schemes)
- Pickaway Cty. Skilled Gaming, L.L.C. v. Cordray, 2010-Ohio-4908 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (skill-based amusement machines and prize limits)