Girard v. Giordano (Slip Opinion)
122 N.E.3d 151
Ohio2018Background
- John Giordano was charged with misdemeanor cruelty to animals after a complaint alleging he kneed and punched his Rottweiler; the complaint included police reports, witness statements, photos, and video.
- Giordano withdrew a not-guilty plea and pleaded no contest, signing a written stipulation to the facts in the complaint; the trial court accepted the plea, found him guilty, and later sentenced him.
- The trial court did not ask for an explanation of the circumstances before finding guilt, as required by Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.07 for misdemeanors (except minor misdemeanors).
- On appeal the court of appeals reversed the conviction for the trial court’s failure to obtain an explanation of circumstances and ordered Giordano discharged from further prosecution, concluding double jeopardy barred retrial.
- The State appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which addressed whether the double-jeopardy clause prohibits retrial after reversal for failure to comply with R.C. 2937.07.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Girard / Appellant—State) | Defendant's Argument (Giordano) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after appellate reversal for failure to obtain an explanation of circumstances under R.C. 2937.07 | Trial-court procedural error does not equal insufficiency of evidence; retrial is permitted | Reversal for failure to comply with R.C. 2937.07 is equivalent to an acquittal for insufficiency, so retrial is barred | Held: No double-jeopardy bar; reversal was for procedural error, not insufficiency; retrial allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (appellate reversal for insufficiency bars retrial; reversal for trial error does not)
- Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (judge's insufficiency ruling is an acquittal that bars retrial)
- Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (extension of double-jeopardy protection beyond jury verdicts)
- Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (historical scope of double-jeopardy protections)
- United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (common-law origins of double jeopardy)
- State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202 (Ohio) (distinguishing insufficiency reversals from trial-error reversals)
- State v. Bird, 81 Ohio St.3d 582 (Ohio) (felony no-contest pleas require conviction when charging instrument sufficiently alleges offense)
- Cuyahoga Falls v. Bowers, 9 Ohio St.3d 148 (Ohio) (R.C. 2937.07 confers substantive right; no-contest plea may not be basis for guilty finding without explanation of circumstances)