City of S. Euclid v. Turner
2018 Ohio 3798
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2018Background
- Charles A. Turner was charged in two municipal cases with criminal trespass for holding/displaying protest signs on December 20, 2016 and March 7, 2017 at the South Euclid Municipal Complex.
- The City had posted a set of posted “Mayor Welo’s Rules and Regulations” (effective Dec. 15, 2016) restricting protests, demonstrations, and possession of signs on municipal property without prior approval.
- Turner moved pretrial to dismiss both trespass charges, arguing the trespass ordinance/statute were unconstitutional as applied to his expressive conduct.
- The municipal trial court granted Turner’s motion, finding the posted rules unconstitutional on their face and as applied under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and dismissed the charges.
- The City appealed, arguing the pretrial dismissal improperly decided issues that required trial on the general issue (privilege to be on the premises).
- The appellate court reversed, holding the constitutional and privilege issues raised could not be resolved on a Crim.R. 12 pretrial motion and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pretrial Crim.R. 12 motion may resolve an as-applied First Amendment/privilege defense to criminal trespass | City: motion raised issues that required resolution at trial; dismissal was premature | Turner: ordinance/statute unconstitutional as applied; dismissal appropriate | Court: motion raised matters not capable of resolution without trial; dismissal was erroneous; reverse and remand |
| Whether Turner had a First Amendment privilege to be on municipal premises such that trespass law did not apply | City: no constitutional privilege excusing trespass once notice applies | Turner: municipal lobby/parking lot were public fora for expressive activity | Court: issue of privilege is a general/ultimate issue for trial and cannot be resolved on pretrial motion |
| Whether Crim.R. 48(B) (dismissal in interests of justice) justified dismissal | Turner: court should dismiss in interests of justice | City: trial court abused procedure by deciding general issue pretrial | Court: not persuaded dismissal in interests of justice was warranted given procedural error |
| Whether the posted municipal rules are facially unconstitutional | Turner: rules violate First Amendment facially and as applied | City: rules are permissible property restrictions and give notice for trespass law | Court: trial court’s facial-constitutionality ruling was improper on pretrial motion; appellate court did not address merits and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brady, 894 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio 2008) (limits on Crim.R.12 pretrial rulings; courts may consider evidence beyond the indictment but may not decide the general issue for trial)
- State v. Palmer, 964 N.E.2d 406 (Ohio 2012) (Crim.R.12 allows pretrial rulings only on matters capable of determination without trying the general issue)
- State v. Kalman, 84 N.E.3d 1088 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (pretrial dismissal inappropriate where defendant’s First Amendment/privilege claim was central to the ultimate trespass issue)
- State v. Gaines, 951 N.E.2d 814 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (trial court erred by deciding the ultimate issue of whether charged conduct met the elements of the offense on a pretrial motion)