2019 Ohio 4353
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- At ~3:12 a.m. police in Strongsville (Cuyahoga County) observed Michael Graham driving ~110 mph and initiated a pursuit; Strongsville officers were later instructed to terminate that chase.
- At ~3:30 a.m. Medina County sheriff observed Graham pumping gas at a Sunoco; when Graham left the station the Medina sheriff (later joined by Wadsworth PD) pursued him for ~2 hours; Graham crashed at ~5:11 a.m. and was arrested at ~9:30 a.m.
- Medina County indicted Graham for failure to comply with a police order (R.C. 2921.331(B)) on June 27, 2018; Graham pled guilty Oct. 1, 2018 and was sentenced Nov. 19, 2018 to five years community control.
- Cuyahoga County later indicted Graham on the same statutory offense on Dec. 4, 2018; Graham moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds and the trial court granted the motion on Dec. 19, 2018.
- State appealed; the appellate court reviewed the double jeopardy dismissal de novo and also considered whether the trial court’s failure to issue written Crim.R. 48(B) findings was harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cuyahoga County’s prosecution violated double jeopardy | The two chases were separate criminal acts in different counties (distinct acts and mens rea), so separate prosecutions are permissible | The pursuit was one continuous course of conduct; Medina conviction bars a second prosecution for the same offense | Dismissal affirmed: same-elements test and facts show one continuous act across jurisdictions, so double jeopardy bars the Cuyahoga prosecution |
| Whether the trial court erred by not issuing written Crim.R. 48(B) findings | The court should have issued written findings of fact and reasons when dismissing over the State’s objection | Oral statement that the incident was one continuous event sufficed; any written findings omission was harmless | No reversible error: the judge stated on the record the reason; failure to write findings was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (articulating the same-elements test for double jeopardy)
- United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (explaining that offenses are distinct only if each requires proof the other does not)
- Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387 (prosecutors within the same sovereign count as one entity for double jeopardy purposes)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio Supreme Court discussion of Double Jeopardy Clause)
- State v. Torres, 31 Ohio App.3d 118 (describing double jeopardy protections against successive prosecutions)