Risner v. Ohio Dep't of Natural Res., 2017 Ohio 7988

Background

In Feb 2011 Arlie Risner pleaded no contest in municipal court to unlawfully taking an antlered white-tailed deer; sentence: $200 fine, $90 restitution, court costs, and one-year hunting-license suspension.
ODNR measured the deer and, by letter in Apr 2011, demanded civil "restitution value" of $27,851.33 under R.C. 1531.201 and withheld license reinstatement until payment.
Risner sued in Huron County Common Pleas seeking declaratory relief, contending R.C. 1531.201 is unconstitutional (double jeopardy, due process, jury-trial, equal protection) and arguing ODNR’s repossession of parts precluded further restitution.
Appellate courts and the Ohio Supreme Court previously held R.C. 1531.201 permits ODNR to recover civil restitution even after seizing the deer; the Supreme Court affirmed that statutory interpretation. The case was remanded to decide the unresolved constitutional issues.
On remand the trial court granted summary judgment for Risner, finding the statute unconstitutional on its face and as applied; the court ordered license reinstated. ODNR appealed. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Issues

Issue	Risner's Argument	ODNR's Argument	Held
Whether return/forfeiture of deer parts constituted criminal punishment such that additional civil restitution is barred	Seizure/forfeiture of deer parts was part of criminal sanction, so further civil restitution is punitive	Forfeiture/return of parts is not a criminal punishment that precludes civil recovery	Court: seizure/forfeiture were part of criminal punishment; nevertheless, this did not by itself bar civil restitution under R.C. 1531.201 (assignment 1 denied)
Whether civil restitution and license-revocation under R.C. 1531.201 violate Double Jeopardy	Additional civil restitution and revocation are punitive and amount to multiple punishments for same offense	Statute is civil in form; legislative intent and Kennedy/Hudson factors show it is not criminal punishment	Court: Applying Hudson/Mendoza-Martinez factors, statute is civil in nature; not transformed into criminal punishment — assignment 2 sustained (no double jeopardy)
Whether R.C. 1531.201 denies due process by providing no hearing or notice before imposing large restitution and indefinite license revocation	Risner lacked notice of the $27,851.33 amount at plea and was not afforded a hearing to challenge measurements/value	ODNR relied on statutory scheme allowing revocation without administrative hearing and claimed civil process sufficed	Court: Risner (and similarly situated defendants) were not given adequate notice or opportunity to be heard; ODNR should have used municipal restitution hearing or filed a civil action — assignment 3 denied (due process violation)
Whether statute violates equal protection / right to jury trial (as raised by ODNR)	Risner argued denial of jury trial / class distinction in process	ODNR contended no class-based denial and record lacks showing of jury-trial issue	Court: Appellate court declined to address because record did not present or preserve a discrete jury-trial/equal-protection error; assignment 4 not decided (moot or unpreserved)

Key Cases Cited

Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 144 Ohio St.3d 278 (Ohio 2015) (interpreting R.C. 1531.201 to permit civil restitution even after ODNR seized deer parts)
Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) (two-prong test for whether civil sanction is punitive for double jeopardy purposes)
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (factors to evaluate whether civil sanction is punitive)
Uskert v. State, 85 Ohio St.3d 593 (Ohio 1999) (civil monetary sanctions and relation to criminal punishment)
Martello v. State, 97 Ohio St.3d 398 (Ohio 2002) (Ohio application of Hudson analysis)
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) (Double Jeopardy Clause applicable to states)
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (standard of review for summary judgment)