Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife (Slip Opinion)
144 Ohio St. 3d 278
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Risner was investigated for hunting without permission; officers seized deer entrails at the scene and later seized antlers from a taxidermist and meat from a butcher; DNA showed all parts were from one deer.
- The antlers measured 228 6/8 inches (trophy size).
- Risner pled no contest to hunting without permission; the court fined him, ordered $90 restitution, forfeited the meat and antlers to ODNR, and suspended his hunting license for one year.
- ODNR then notified Risner it would seek $27,851.33 in civil restitution under R.C. 1531.201 (statutory formula for trophy deer restitution) and revoked his license until payment.
- Risner sued for declaratory judgment arguing ODNR could not seek restitution after already obtaining possession of the deer parts; the trial court agreed, but the Sixth District reversed. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Risner) | Defendant's Argument (ODNR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 1531.201(B) bars ODNR from seeking civil restitution after seizing and being awarded possession of seized animal parts in a criminal forfeiture | R.C. 1531.201(B) permits recovery of either possession OR restitution, not both; once ODNR has the animal, it cannot also demand restitution | R.C. 1531.201(B) authorizes ODNR to bring a civil action to recover possession "or" restitution, and subsections (C) and (D) impose mandatory restitution and license revocation that are unaffected by prior criminal forfeiture | Court held ODNR may seek civil restitution even though it previously seized and was awarded the deer parts; statute is unambiguous and permits both remedies (possession and restitution) in separate proceedings |
| Whether R.C. 1531.201(C) and (D) are mandatory and limit ODNR's discretion | Risner: allowing both possession and full restitution eviscerates restitution principles and may permit double recovery | ODNR: (C) and (D) use "shall" and thus impose mandatory restitution and license revocation; civil suit under (B) is a proper enforcement mechanism | Court held (C) and (D) are mandatory duties triggered by conviction; ODNR must seek restitution and revoke license until paid; (B) allows civil action to enforce restitution |
| Whether statutory construction or legislative intent requires ODNR to choose between remedies | Risner: "or" is disjunctive; legislature chose not to authorize double recovery; restitution traditionally compensatory and should be limited to actual economic loss | ODNR: broader statutory scheme and legislative history show intent to deter poaching by allowing robust remedies; (E) preserves seizure rights and (B)-(D) should be read together | Court held statute read as whole supports ODNR authority to pursue civil restitution notwithstanding prior seizure; reading otherwise would frustrate deterrent purpose |
| Whether double-jeopardy or other constitutional objections (raised but not argued below) preclude ODNR's civil restitution claim | Risner raised several constitutional claims in trial court but did not raise double-jeopardy below; asserts double recovery implicates constitutional limits | ODNR: constitutional defenses were not preserved; civil restitution is statutory enforcement and should be interpreted per text | Court declined to reach forfeited double-jeopardy claim (forfeited for appeal) and remanded unresolved constitutional issues to trial court for consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. United States Steel Corp. v. Zaleski, 98 Ohio St.3d 395 (2003) (statutory interpretation focuses on legislative intent as expressed in text)
- Slingluff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621 (1902) (if statute language is plain and unambiguous, courts apply it as written)
- Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 510 (2010) (courts must apply statutes as written and avoid adding or deleting words)
- Armstrong v. John R. Jurgensen Co., 136 Ohio St.3d 58 (2013) (same; refrain from altering unambiguous statutory text)
- State v. Wilson, 77 Ohio St.3d 334 (1997) (interpret statute in context of the whole enactment)
- State v. Palmer, 112 Ohio St.3d 457 (2007) (word "shall" is ordinarily mandatory absent contrary intent)
- Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 (2014) (appellate courts generally will not consider errors not raised below)
- Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248 (2013) (restitution may not exceed economic loss directly and proximately caused by the offense)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) (double jeopardy precedent relevant when successive punitive recoveries are asserted)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil cases should be applied only in extraordinary circumstances)