State v. Blackshear, 2022 Ohio 230

May 13, 2021: J.B.’s parents received texts/calls from his phone saying he was being held hostage; police surveilled a house where J.B. had been and observed appellant (Jeno Blackshear) leaving and reentering the house.
Officers stopped appellant’s vehicle and found two firearms and J.B.’s cell phone; inside the house police found J.B. locked in a cabinet under the basement stairwell, beaten.
J.B. told police he had agreed to grow marijuana for “Ray” (identified as appellant); appellant allegedly assaulted, restrained, beat J.B., sent photos of the injured victim to his family, and demanded $10,000.
Appellant was arrested, posted municipal-court bond and was later indicted in common pleas court on aggravated robbery (with firearm specification), kidnapping (with firearm specification), felonious assault, and a firearms-related misdemeanor.
The state requested a R.C. 2937.222 bail-denial hearing; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident/presumption great, that appellant posed a substantial risk of serious physical harm, and that no release conditions would reasonably assure safety — revoking bond and ordering appellant held without bail.
Appellant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence that he presently posed a substantial risk of serious physical harm and that no release conditions could reasonably assure safety; the Sixth District affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Blackshear's Argument	Held
Whether denial of bail under R.C. 2937.222 was supported by clear and convincing evidence that (a) proof is evident/presumption great; (b) defendant poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm; and (c) no release conditions will reasonably assure safety	Violent, retaliatory conduct (assault, confinement, beatings), use/threat of firearms, ransom demand, and motive for revenge support a firm belief that appellant remains a danger; electronic monitoring is imperfect	Appellant complied with municipal-court bond conditions for ~2 months, voluntarily appeared on indictment, and there is no evidence he attempted contact or violated bond — cash bond plus electronic monitoring would suffice	The court held the state met the clear-and-convincing standard on the danger and no-safe-release prongs; revocation of bond and detention without bail affirmed

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (clear-and-convincing standard described for non-criminal proceedings)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)