2016 Ohio 4761
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Dale Johnston was convicted of two aggravated murders, sentenced to death, and his convictions were reversed on appeal because of trial errors including Brady violations and inadmissible hypnotically-refreshed testimony; the indictment was later nolled and he was released in 1990.
- Johnston filed a wrongful-imprisonment claim under R.C. 2743.48; a 2003 amendment added an (A)(5) ground allowing claims where a procedural error subsequent to sentencing and during/subsequent to imprisonment resulted in release, or where the court found actual innocence.
- The trial court granted Johnston summary judgment in 2012, declaring him a "wrongfully imprisoned individual" largely on procedural-error grounds; the State appealed.
- This court (Johnston I) earlier reversed; the Ohio Supreme Court (Johnston II) held the 2003 amendment applies retroactively and remanded for consideration of other assignments of error.
- On remand this court addressed: (1) whether res judicata barred Johnston's actual-innocence claim, (2) whether Johnston satisfied R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) given Mansaray v. State, and (3) two additional issues (accrual/statute of limitations and whether further prosecution is barred) which the court found moot after resolving (2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata (did 1993 judgment bar relitigation of actual-innocence claim?) | Johnston: trial court did not base relief on actual innocence; he did not reassert (A)(5) actual-innocence prong in 1993 | State: 1993 adverse judgment bars relitigation of actual-innocence claim | Court: Trial court never relied on actual innocence; res judicata argument fails (State's 3rd assignment overruled) |
| R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) — timing of "error in procedure" (must error occur after sentencing/during or after imprisonment?) | Johnston: his release resulted from prosecutorial Brady violations and the subsequent dismissal/release — that dismissal is the relevant subsequent event | State: Under Mansaray, the procedural error must itself occur subsequent to sentencing and during/subsequent to imprisonment; Brady/trial errors do not qualify | Court: Mansaray controls—errors that occurred at trial (e.g., Brady, suppression rulings) do not satisfy (A)(5); (A)(5) not met; State's 5th assignment sustained; trial court erred in granting summary judgment |
| Accrual / statute-of-limitations (did cause accrue at 2003 amendment?) | Johnston: argued accrual occurred with amendment | State: argued accrual earlier / six-year rule applies | Court: Moot after disposing (A)(5) issue; not decided on merits |
| R.C. 2743.48(A)(4) — no further prosecution can be brought | Johnston: claimed no further prosecution will be brought | State: disputed that requirement | Court: Moot after disposing (A)(5) and res judicata issues; not decided on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Mansaray v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 277 (2014) (interprets 2003 amendment to R.C. 2743.48(A)(5): to satisfy the "error in procedure" clause the error must have occurred subsequent to sentencing and during or subsequent to imprisonment)
- State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (1988) (direct appeal: Brady violation and other trial errors warranted reversal)
- Doss v. State, 135 Ohio St.3d 211 (2012) (describes the two ways to satisfy R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) and framework for wrongful-imprisonment claims)
- Dunbar v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 181 (2013) (failure to satisfy any R.C. 2743.48 requirement is fatal to a wrongful-imprisonment claim)
- D'Ambrosio v. State, 139 Ohio St.3d 1416 (2014) (summarily reversed on Mansaray authority; illustrates limits of treating trial-stage procedural errors as qualifying under (A)(5))