State v. Cartwright
2017 Ohio 7212
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Loren Cartwright, owner of a residential hauling business, repeatedly dumped refuse on his Bogus Road property after prior notice that dumping was illegal; a large pile (approx. 100'×70'×15–20') accumulated and spontaneously combusted in April 2015.
- The Fayette County Health Department (FCHD) and OEPA investigated, discovered buried refuse and a rat infestation, and took remediation steps; FCHD spent $105,741.69 to exterminate rats and remove refuse, partly funded by a $100,000 OEPA grant from the Environmental Protection Remediation Fund.
- Cartwright was indicted on open dumping and related charges and pleaded guilty to one count of open dumping (R.C. 3734.03).
- At sentencing the trial court found Cartwright’s conduct created a significant public-health hazard, imposed one year community control, a $10,000 fine, and ordered $84,486.69 in restitution to the State for remediation costs (credited to the Environmental Protection Remediation Fund).
- Cartwright appealed, arguing the State (OEPA/FCHD) is not a “victim” entitled to restitution under R.C. 2929.18 because the statutory definition of “victim” in R.C. 2930.01(H)(1) is limited and excludes governmental agencies acting in their public duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could order restitution to the State for remediation costs following open dumping | State: restitution may be paid to an agency designated by the court; OEPA/FCHD represent the public victim and remediation protected public health | Cartwright: State/OEPA/FCHD are not “victims” under R.C. 2930.01(H)(1); agencies incurring public-duty expenses aren’t entitled to restitution | Court affirmed: restitution to the State was permissible because the public (community/neighbors) was the victim of the offense and OEPA/FCHD represented that public interest; R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) allows payees beyond private victims |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bartholomew, 119 Ohio St.3d 359 (2008) (R.C. 2929.18 allows restitution to payees other than private victims, such as adult probation departments, clerks, or other agencies designated by the court)
- State v. Ritchie, 174 Ohio App.3d 582 (2007) (declined to apply R.C. 2930.01(H)(1) outside Chapter 2930; definitions there are chapter-specific)
- State v. Wolf, 176 Ohio App.3d 165 (2008) (discussed limits on restitution to responding public agencies for expenses incurred performing public duties)