2022 Ohio 2364
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Kayla Freeman lawfully carried a firearm and shot an assailant in the leg while defending another.
- Cleveland police seized Freeman’s firearm at the time of her arrest; the state later indicted her on two counts of felonious assault.
- The state moved to dismiss the criminal prosecution and the indictment was dismissed; the police have not returned the seized firearm.
- Freeman filed a post-dismissal motion in the trial court seeking return of the seized property; the state did not oppose the motion.
- The trial court denied the motion as moot, asserting it lacked jurisdiction to order return of the property after dismissal.
- Ohio law (R.C. 2981.11 et seq.) imposes a duty on law enforcement to make reasonable efforts to notify and promptly return lawfully seized property when it is no longer needed as evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court retains continuing jurisdiction after dismissal to order the return of property seized for the prosecution | State conceded the court retains jurisdiction and did not oppose return of the property | Freeman argued the trial court had continuing jurisdiction and that denying the motion as moot was error | Court held trial court retains continuing jurisdiction to resolve a post-disposition motion for return of seized property; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 115 N.E.3d 878 (recognizing trial court’s continuing jurisdiction to order return of seized property)
- State v. Bolton, 97 N.E.3d 37 (same)