C.K. v. State
145 Ohio St. 3d 322
| Ohio | 2015Background
- C.K. shot and killed Andre Coleman in his home; convicted of murder and sentenced to 18 years to life after a jury rejected his self‑defense (castle‑doctrine) claim.
- The Eighth District reversed the conviction as against the manifest weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial.
- On remand the prosecutor dismissed the indictment without prejudice; the trial court sealed the record and the prosecuting attorney later said there were no current plans to reindict, but it "could in the future."
- C.K. sued for a declaratory judgment under R.C. 2743.48 seeking a finding that he is a "wrongfully imprisoned individual" and therefore eligible for compensation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the State, reasoning murder has no statute of limitations and dismissal without prejudice leaves retrial possible; the appellate court reversed, finding factual disputes about whether the State will or can refile.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding as a matter of law that dismissal without prejudice and the absence of a statute of limitations for murder mean C.K. cannot meet R.C. 2743.48(A)(4)’s requirement that "no criminal proceeding... can be brought, or will be brought."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2743.48(A)(4) bars recovery when prosecution was dismissed without prejudice after reversal for manifest weight | C.K.: must show future prosecution is unlikely or not possible; prosecutor’s statements and lack of active investigation show State will not reindict | State: dismissal without prejudice + murder has no statute of limitations => retrial can be brought at any time, so C.K. cannot satisfy the statute | Held: State wins. Reversal for manifest weight and dismissal without prejudice do not preclude future prosecution; C.K. cannot prove no proceeding "can be brought, or will be brought." |
| Whether reversal for manifest weight precludes retrial on same evidence | C.K.: appellate ruling on castle doctrine means retrial would be fruitless | State: manifest weight reversal does not bar retrial | Held: Retrial is constitutionally permissible; manifest‑weight reversal does not preclude retrial (Double Jeopardy not violated). |
| Whether prosecutor’s lack of current intent to prosecute is sufficient under R.C. 2743.48(A)(4) | C.K.: prosecutor’s admission of no plans and passage of time suffice | State: prosecutorial discretion and absence of statute of limitations permit future charges despite current inaction | Held: Insufficient. Discretion to defer prosecution and no limitations means future prosecution "can be brought." |
| Whether alleged contemporaneous criminal conduct (drug use) bars relief under statute | C.K.: pipe belonged to tenant; contemporaneous conduct must relate to charged offense | State: alleged drug use could preclude recovery under statute | Held: Court rejected appellate court’s reliance on lack of evidence about new investigation; remand analysis unnecessary because statutory bar in (A)(4) dispositive. (Court did not resolve factual drug‑use dispute because statutory issue resolved the case.) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (reversal for weight does not bar retrial on same evidence)
- Bucolo v. Adkins, 424 U.S. 641 (nolle prosequi entered before jeopardy attaches does not preclude reprosecution)
- United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (prosecutors may defer filing charges while investigating to secure stronger evidence)
- Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio case reiterating that manifest‑weight reversal does not trigger double jeopardy)
- Maloney v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St. 84 (Ohio precedent that nolle prosequi dismisses charges without prejudice)