C.K. v. State, 2014 Ohio 1243

C.K. was convicted of murder after shooting Andre Coleman in C.K.’s home; sentenced to 15 years to life plus a firearm specification.
This court reversed the conviction as against the manifest weight of the evidence, concluding the Castle Doctrine/self‑defense applied and remanded for retrial.
The Ohio Supreme Court declined review; the prosecutor dismissed the indictment without prejudice. C.K. obtained expungement of records.
C.K. sued under R.C. 2743.48 for a declaratory finding of wrongful imprisonment; both parties moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the State solely because murder has no statute of limitations, reasoning the State could reindict at any time, so C.K. could not satisfy R.C. 2743.48(A)(4).
On appeal the court held there is a genuine factual issue whether another prosecution "can be brought, or will be brought" — i.e., whether a reindictment is both legally permissible and factually supportable — so summary judgment for the State was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2743.48(A)(4) is defeated as a matter of law because murder has no statute of limitations	C.K.: mere lack of a limitations period does not establish that a criminal proceeding "can or will" be brought; the State presented no evidence of ongoing investigation or new evidence	State: because murder has no statute of limitations, the possibility of reindictment prevents satisfaction of the fourth prong	Court: Reversed trial court; statute of limitations is only one factor — factual inquiry required into whether another prosecution is legally permissible and factually supportable; summary judgment for State was improper
Whether alleged unrelated criminal conduct (drug use) bars relief under R.C. 2743.48(A)(4)	C.K.: alleged drug use weeks earlier is not criminal conduct "arising out of" or "associated with" the shooting/murder charge	State: argued C.K. engaged in criminal conduct around the incident which could support other charges	Court: Rejected State’s broad reading; Gover permits exclusion only for other criminal conduct "arising out of" the same incident; drug allegations here were not shown to be associated with the murder charge

Doss v. State, 135 Ohio St.3d 211 (2012) (describing the two‑step wrongful imprisonment scheme and claimant’s burden)
Dunbar v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 181 (2013) (affirming that claimant must satisfy all statutory prongs by a preponderance)
Gover v. State, 67 Ohio St.3d 93 (1993) (holding claimant must prove they were not engaging in other criminal conduct arising out of the incident charged)
State v. C.K., 195 Ohio App.3d 343 (2011) (appellate reversal of murder conviction on manifest‑weight grounds based on Castle Doctrine)
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (standard for de novo appellate review of summary judgment)