State ex rel. Zander v. Judge of Summit Cty. Common Pleas Court (Slip Opinion)
129 N.E.3d 401
Ohio2019Background
- David J. Zander was convicted in 2009 of aggravated murder in Summit County, charged under R.C. 2903.01(B); the jury acquitted him of the underlying felony (aggravated robbery).
- Zander contends that the acquittal of the underlying felony required acquittal of aggravated murder.
- He previously appealed his conviction and raised an inconsistent-verdicts argument on appeal, which was rejected.
- Zander filed a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition against an unnamed Summit County Common Pleas judge seeking relief from the conviction.
- The court of appeals dismissed the complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim; Zander appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Zander had an adequate remedy by appeal and that inconsistent verdicts do not render the judgment void for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is available to overturn conviction based on allegedly inconsistent verdicts | Zander: conviction is void because acquittal of underlying felony required acquittal of aggravated murder | Court/State: Zander had an adequate remedy by appeal and inconsistent verdicts do not make the judgment void | Mandamus denied; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether prohibition is available to prevent enforcement of the conviction | Zander: court lacked authority to enter judgment on inconsistent verdicts | Court/State: trial court had authority; petitioner had adequate remedy by appeal | Prohibition denied; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether a judgment entered on inconsistent verdicts is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Zander: inconsistent verdicts rendered judgment void | State: precedent holds inconsistent verdicts can stand; no jurisdictional defect | Judgment not void for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was appropriate | Zander: complaint stated claims warranting extraordinary relief | Court/State: complaint showed no set of facts entitling relief and admitted prior appeal | Dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 378 (2017) (mandamus elements and standards)
- Drake v. Tyson-Parker, 101 Ohio St.3d 210 (2004) (inmate with inconsistent-verdicts claim has adequate remedy by appeal)
- Thompson v. Donnelly, 155 Ohio St.3d 184 (2018) (extraordinary relief not available where adequate appellate remedy exists)
- State ex rel. Brown v. Nusbaum, 152 Ohio St.3d 284 (2017) (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- State ex rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs., 83 Ohio St.3d 179 (1998) (standard for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (inconsistent jury verdicts need not be reconciled; do not require vacatur)
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (1932) (consistency in verdict not necessary)