State v. Fisk, 2022 Ohio 4435

Defendant Zacary Fisk stabbed victim Steven Patton; Patton incurred over $177,000 in medical bills.
At sentencing the trial court denied Patton’s restitution request pending documentation from the Department of Veterans Affairs showing noncoverage.
The State cross‑appealed the restitution denial, arguing Marsy’s Law grants the prosecutor authority to challenge the denial on the victim’s behalf.
The Second District Court of Appeals held the State lacked standing under Article I, Section 10a (Marsy’s Law) to appeal and declined to address the merits.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding Marsy’s Law is a victims’ enforcement mechanism but is inconclusive as to whether the prosecuting attorney may appeal on the State’s behalf; it remanded for the court of appeals to decide the appeal under applicable statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Article I, Section 10a(B) (Marsy’s Law) authorizes the prosecuting attorney to appeal a trial court’s denial of victim restitution	Marsy’s Law gives the attorney for the government authority to vindicate victims’ rights and thus permits the State to challenge a restitution denial	Marsy’s Law grants rights to victims, not prosecutors; omission of “attorney for the government” from the appeals sentence shows drafters did not authorizesuch appeals by the State	Marsy’s Law is a mechanism for victims and is not dispositive; it does not by itself answer whether the prosecutor may appeal on the State’s behalf; court reversed and remanded for statutory analysis
Whether the State may appeal the restitution denial under existing statutory authority (e.g., R.C. provisions governing sentences and appeals)	The State may appeal a sentence contrary to law and has an interest in enforcement of criminal law, so it can challenge the restitution ruling under applicable statutes	Fisk contended the State lacked standing under Marsy’s Law and suffered no cognizable injury	The Court declined to resolve the statutory question; remanded to the court of appeals to consider the State’s cross‑appeal and any forfeiture issues under controlling statutes; a concurrence noted statutory authority supports the State’s ability to appeal

Centerville v. Knab, 162 Ohio St.3d 623 (2020) (interpretation of constitutional amendment language)
State v. Jackson, 102 Ohio St.3d 380 (2004) (start with plain language when construing statutes and constitutional text)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (consider ordinary public understanding of words in constitutional interpretation)
State ex rel. Suwalski v. Peeler, 167 Ohio St.3d 38 (2021) (discussed Marsy’s Law petitioning mechanism)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (standing requires a concrete injury)
State v. Carswell, 114 Ohio St.3d 210 (2007) (presumption that drafters and voters were aware of existing statutes when adopting a constitutional amendment)