State v. Hartman
2017 Ohio 1089
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Matthew J. Hartman was indicted (2009) for aggravated burglary; convicted at two separate trials and sentenced to five years each time.
- This Court reversed the first conviction because an unredacted 911 recording with hearsay was admitted (Hartman I) and reversed the second conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct in closing and rebuttal (Hartman II).
- After the reversals, the State sought reappointment of a special prosecutor; a third judge was assigned for the next proceedings.
- Hartman filed multiple pretrial motions: (1) a 69‑page motion to dismiss with prejudice alleging prosecutorial and judicial bad‑faith misconduct; (2) a double jeopardy motion asserting the State failed to meet its burden of production in the first two trials; and (3) a motion alleging the official transcripts were deliberately altered, voiding prior appellate decisions.
- The trial court denied all motions, concluding (a) many claims exceeded the narrow double‑jeopardy appellate exception and were for direct appeal, and (b) res judicata and law‑of‑the‑case principles barred relitigation of sufficiency issues already raised or that could have been raised earlier.
- On appeal, this Court dismissed parts of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the trial court: double‑jeopardy arguments were overruled and other claims were dismissed for exceeding the proper scope of review.
Issues
| Issue | Hartman’s Argument | State / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial should be dismissed with prejudice for alleged prosecutorial and judicial bad‑faith misconduct (double jeopardy) | Misconduct across two trials was so egregious and in bad faith that retrial is barred under Double Jeopardy (citing Daugherty/Dinitz) | Many allegations are not double‑jeopardy claims; reversal on appeal for trial error (not insufficiency) does not bar retrial | Court: No. Denial of motion affirmed; Daugherty/Dinitz inapplicable; reversal on appeal does not equal acquittal barring reprosecution |
| Whether double jeopardy bars a third prosecution because State failed to meet burden of production in first two trials (sufficiency) | State’s failure of proof in both trials means reprosecution is barred as equivalent to acquittal | Res judicata: sufficiency issues were or could have been raised on prior direct appeals; at least one appeal found production sufficient | Court: Overruled. Res judicata precludes relitigation of sufficiency; double‑jeopardy bar does not apply here |
| Whether prior appellate decisions and law‑of‑the‑case are void due to allegedly altered transcripts (fraud on the court) | Altered official transcript corrupted the record and voids prior appellate rulings and res judicata application | Claims exceed the narrow double‑jeopardy appellate scope and can be raised on direct appeal; court lacks jurisdiction now | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as claim is outside the limited double‑jeopardy review and must be raised on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 148 Ohio St.3d 74 (double‑jeopardy appellate review standard and scope)
- United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (double‑jeopardy protection against government actions provoking mistrial requests)
- State v. Liberatore, 69 Ohio St.2d 583 (distinguishing reversal on appeal from mistrial for double‑jeopardy purposes)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata bars issues raised or that could have been raised on prior appeal)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (res judicata principles for related actions)