2021 Ohio 1423
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Anthony McClain was convicted of murder in 1995, retried in 2006 after an appellate remand, and acquitted at the retrial.
- McClain later sued under Ohio’s wrongful-imprisonment statute, R.C. 2743.48, seeking a judicial declaration that he is a “wrongfully imprisoned individual” and demanded a jury trial.
- R.C. 2743.48 requires a common‑pleas court determination (first step) that the claimant satisfies five statutory conditions (including R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) concerning actual innocence or Brady‑based error) before money damages are pursued in the Court of Claims (second step).
- The trial court denied McClain’s jury demand, held a bench trial on the R.C. 2743.48(A) issues, and found McClain did not prove actual innocence; it therefore declined to declare him wrongfully imprisoned.
- On appeal McClain argued he had both statutory and constitutional rights to a jury; the majority affirmed the denial of a jury, while a vigorous dissent argued for a broad constitutional jury right grounded in common‑law analogues and history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2743.48 provides a statutory right to a jury for the common‑pleas determination of wrongful imprisonment | McClain: R.C. 2743.48 is an action for recovery and he is entitled to a jury. | State: R.C. 2743.48 assigns the initial determination to "the court of common pleas" and is a statutory special proceeding for a judge. | Held: No statutory right. R.C. 2743.48’s text (and structure) contemplates a judicial (bench) determination. |
| Whether general jury statutes (R.C. 2311.04 or R.C. 2721.10) require a jury in a R.C. 2743.48 action | McClain: R.C. 2311.04 (actions for money only) or R.C. 2721.10 (declaratory relief) entitle him to a jury. | State: R.C. 2743.48 is a special statutory proceeding that did not exist at common law; R.C. 2311.04 and R.C. 2721.10 do not override the specific statutory assignment to the common‑pleas court. | Held: Reject plaintiff. R.C. 2311.04 and R.C. 2721.10 do not create a jury right for this special proceeding. |
| Whether Article I, §5 of the Ohio Constitution guarantees a jury trial for R.C. 2743.48 actions (common‑law analogue question) | McClain: Wrongful‑imprisonment is analogous to the common‑law tort of false imprisonment (a jury‑triable cause) and thus Section 5 preserves a jury right. | State: R.C. 2743.48 is a statutory special proceeding that did not exist at common law; the constitutional jury right applies only where it existed at common law or is provided by statute. | Held: No constitutional right. The majority concluded R.C. 2743.48 is a special proceeding without a common‑law analogue that preserves a jury right; therefore no Article I, §5 jury protection applies. (Dissent argued otherwise.) |
Key Cases Cited
- Arrington v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1004 (Ohio 2006) (the jury right is not absolute; it exists only where statute or common law provides it)
- Kneisley v. Lattimer-Stevens Co., 533 N.E.2d 743 (Ohio 1988) (when legislature assigns determinations to the "court" rather than "court or jury," bench trial only)
- Armstrong v. Marathon Oil Co., 513 N.E.2d 776 (Ohio 1987) (special statutory proceedings may assign fact‑finding to the court and displace jury participation)
- Bennett v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 573 N.E.2d 633 (Ohio 1991) (R.C. 2743.48 supplements false‑imprisonment law by waiving sovereign immunity to permit recovery)
- Walden v. State, 547 N.E.2d 962 (Ohio 1989) (R.C. 2743.48 and R.C. 2305.02 constitute a legislative waiver creating a special proceeding)
- Doss v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1229 (Ohio 2012) (describing R.C. 2743.48’s two‑step process: common‑pleas determination then Court of Claims damages)
- Belding v. State ex rel. Heifner, 169 N.E. 301 (Ohio 1929) (early precedent limiting constitutional jury right to claims recognized at common law)