Dayton v. Johnson
2021 Ohio 3519
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In June 2020 John A. T. Johnson dumped tree trunks/branches on property he did not own and was charged with one misdemeanor count of littering under R.C. 3767.32(A).
- At a November 2, 2020 plea hearing Johnson pled no contest; the municipal court nevertheless entered a finding of not guilty, stating the statute did not appear to cover tree limbs/trunks.
- The initial judgment lacked full journalization; a March 4, 2021 final appealable entry memorialized the not-guilty finding and the City filed a timely appeal with a motion for leave under App.R. 5(C).
- The City’s motion for leave was minimal and omitted affidavits/record excerpts and a legal brief; the appellate court acknowledged the App.R. 5(C) defects but granted leave to appeal and cautioned that future failures to strictly comply may bar review.
- On de novo review of statutory interpretation, the appellate court held the trial court erred as a matter of law: tree stumps/branches fall within the ordinary meanings of terms (trash, waste, refuse, rubbish, garbage) encompassed by the statutory definition of “litter.” The acquittal, however, remains effective because double jeopardy bars reprosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tree stumps, branches, or yard waste are “litter” under R.C. 3767.32(D)(1) | City: Yes — even if not listed, such items fit the listed terms (trash, waste, refuse, etc.) and the catchall “anything else of an unsightly or unsanitary nature.” | Johnson: No — the statutory examples are primarily man‑made items; natural yard waste (tree limbs/trunks) is not covered. | Appellate court: Held for City — tree limbs/trunks fall within ordinary meanings of trash/waste/refuse and thus meet the statutory definition of “litter”; trial court erred in concluding otherwise. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hughes, 324 N.E.2d 731 (discusses that State has no criminal appeal right except as provided by statute)
- State v. Davidson, 477 N.E.2d 1141 (explains R.C. 2945.67 as statute authorizing certain State appeals)
- State v. Bistricky, 555 N.E.2d 644 (permits appellate review by leave of legal rulings producing an acquittal)
- State v. Arnett, 489 N.E.2d 284 (addresses limits on State appeals and reviewable legal questions)
- State v. Vanzandt, 28 N.E.3d 1267 (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 660 N.E.2d 463 (use of ordinary dictionary meaning when statute omits definitions)