State v. Bolton
100 N.E.3d 1275
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Police seized multiple firearms and ammunition from Gary Bolton’s residence during a December 22, 2014 encounter; no forfeiture specification was included in the municipal charging complaint.
- Bolton later pled guilty to a May 2015 felony (inducing panic) in Montgomery County and pled no contest to a municipal misdemeanor (aggravated menacing); the misdemeanor sentence said nothing about the seized weapons.
- The Miamisburg Municipal Court initially ordered the weapons returned to Bolton conditioned on compliance with probation and later received notice Bolton had satisfied probation.
- The West Carrollton Police Deputy Chief moved to reconsider, asserting Bolton is statutorily prohibited from possessing firearms due to his felony conviction (R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)).
- The municipal court vacated its order returning the weapons to Bolton, ordered the PD to dispose of the property per statute, and Bolton appealed; the appellate court affirmed vacation of return but reversed the disposal order and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bolton’s felony conviction places him under a weapons disability preventing return of seized firearms | State: Bolton is under R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) weapons disability as a convicted felon of violence, so firearms cannot be returned | Bolton: No law prevents him from owning the firearms; requested return or release to his adult son for sale | Court: Bolton is under statutory weapons disability; court did not abuse discretion in refusing to return weapons to Bolton or to his son (would create constructive possession) |
| Whether releasing the weapons to Bolton’s son (for Bolton to liquidate) is permissible | State: Release to son would give Bolton constructive possession, violating weapons disability | Bolton: Release to son would allow sale with proceeds to Bolton | Court: Release to son would create constructive possession; not allowed |
| Whether the municipal court could order disposal (forfeiture/sale/destruction) of the weapons without a forfeiture proceeding | State: Court ordered disposal “in accordance with statute” | Bolton: No forfeiture was initiated; property is not forfeited and should be returned | Court: Disposal order reversed — no Chapter 2981 forfeiture was initiated; property retains provisional State custody and must be held for safekeeping pending proper disposition |
| Proper interim status of seized property when owner is under weapons disability but no forfeiture proceeding has occurred | State: May keep property for lawful purpose and safekeeping pursuant to R.C. 2981.11(A)(1) | Bolton: Demanded return; proposed disposition options (hold until expungement or sell via third party) | Court: Weapons to remain in police custody for safekeeping under R.C. 2981.11(A)(1); court may consider Bolton’s proposed options on remand but must avoid any disposition that grants Bolton actual or constructive possession |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brimacombe, 195 Ohio App.3d 524 (2011) (discusses that weapons disability is distinct from forfeiture and disposition remains an issue absent forfeiture proceedings)
- State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316 (1976) (defining constructive possession as exercising dominion and control over an object)
- State v. Hardy, 60 Ohio App.2d 325 (1978) (discussing agent-based constructive possession)
- State v. North, 980 N.E.2d 566 (Ohio App.) (explaining provisional state title in seized property before forfeiture proceedings)