2023 Ohio 705
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Damonte Dickey was indicted on multiple felonies arising from an August 2022 shooting, including felonious-assault counts and weapons offenses.
- Trial court set secured bail at $190,000 (with electronic monitoring); a surety posted the bond.
- The state moved to increase bail but did not request denial of bail or submit documentary evidence with its motion.
- At the hearing the prosecutor made oral arguments about the shooting, prior record, and ballistics but offered no exhibits or witness testimony; defense counsel disputed factual assertions.
- The court sua sponte revoked bail and ordered Dickey held without bail, stating the facts were proven by "clear and convincing evidence."
- The appellate court reversed, holding the statutory standard in R.C. 2937.222 requires actual evidence (not attorney argument) showing clear-and-convincing proof before denying bail, and remanded for further proceedings or a compliant hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court lawfully denied bail under R.C. 2937.222 without evidentiary proof | State argued facts supporting danger and guilt via prosecutor's oral argument and contended bond should be increased | Dickey argued no evidence was presented; attorney argument cannot satisfy the statute’s clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement | Reversed: attorney argument alone insufficient; statute requires evidence before denying bail |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Stafford, 946 N.E.2d 193 (Ohio 2011) (defines "clear and convincing" as showing truth of asserted facts is highly probable)
- In re J.V., 979 N.E.2d 1203 (Ohio 2012) (clear-and-convincing standard requires firm belief or conviction of facts)
- In re K.H., 895 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 2008) (compares burden to greater than preponderance but less than beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (classic formulation of clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re B.D.-Y., 187 P.3d 594 (Kan. 2008) (characterizes clear-and-convincing evidence as highly probable proof)
- State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner’s Office, 94 N.E.3d 498 (Ohio 2017) (courts must adhere to plain statutory language rather than rewrite statutory text)
- State v. Jeffries, 156 N.E.3d 859 (Ohio 2020) (when statute is plain, courts must apply its terms)