McClain v. State, 2022 Ohio 4722

In 1995 Anthony McClain was convicted of murder and sentenced; after a successful motion for a new trial he was retried in 2006 and acquitted.
McClain filed a statutory wrongful‑imprisonment action under R.C. 2743.48 to be declared a “wrongfully imprisoned individual” and included a jury demand.
The jury demand was denied; the R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) issue (actual innocence / no offense committed) was tried to the bench, and the trial court declined to declare him wrongfully imprisoned.
The First District Court of Appeals (2–1) affirmed, holding no constitutional right to a jury trial in such an action. McClain sought discretionary review.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: Article I, Section 5’s jury‑trial guarantee does not apply because an R.C. 2743.48 wrongful‑imprisonment action is a statutory special proceeding that did not exist at common law; additionally, the State’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity frames the procedure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Article I, §5 guarantees a jury trial in an R.C. 2743.48 wrongful‑imprisonment action	McClain: wrongful‑imprisonment is rooted in common‑law false imprisonment, which carried a jury right	State: R.C. 2743.48 is a statutory special proceeding with no common‑law analogue	No — no constitutional jury right; action did not exist at common law
Whether suing the State here entitles plaintiff to a jury given sovereign‑immunity waiver	McClain: jury right should attach regardless	State: waiver is statutory and limited; legislature prescribed judge determination and procedure	No — the State’s consent prescribes the manner (no jury at step one)
Whether false‑imprisonment tort is analogous so as to preserve jury right	McClain: statutory claim derives from false‑imprisonment tort	State: elements differ; false imprisonment excludes confinement pursuant to judicial sentence	Not analogous — false imprisonment and wrongful imprisonment are distinct

Belding v. State ex rel. Heifner, 169 N.E. 301 (1929) (establishes common‑law analogue test for constitutional jury right)
Arrington v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1004 (2006) (no constitutional jury right where statute created new, non‑common‑law cause)
Bennett v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 573 N.E.2d 633 (1991) (distinguishes false imprisonment tort from R.C. 2743.48’s remedial scheme)
Walden v. State, 547 N.E.2d 962 (1989) (describes wrongful‑imprisonment statute’s two‑step process and lack of common‑law parallel)
Spitzig v. State, 162 N.E. 394 (1928) (historical practice: legislature provided special bills or appropriations to remedy wrongful imprisonment)
Raudabaugh v. State, 118 N.E. 102 (1917) (recognizes state sovereign immunity absent statutory consent)