State v. Hatton
2012 Ohio 2019
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Indictment issued January 29, 1997 following a five-count grand jury indictment for aggravated burglary, kidnapping, felonious assault, rape, and theft.
- Appellant acknowledged receipt of the indictment, waived reading, and entered not guilty pleas at arraignment.
- Jury convicted Hatton on all counts after a four-day trial; he was sentenced to 39 years.
- Nearly fourteen years later, Hatton moved to dismiss/vacate conviction arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a defective indictment.
- Trial court denied the motion, ruling Ohio law does not require each count to be signed and that the indictment substantially complied with Crim.R. 6 and 7.
- Hatton appeals asserting he was never validly indicted and that papers claiming to be an indictment do not relate to him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Hatton’s challenge to the indictment. | Hatton argues lack of valid indictment as a defense. | Hatton contends the indictment was invalid and ineffective. | Res judicata bars the challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (absent grounds to attack after conviction; due process defenses raised on direct appeal)
- Orr v. Mack, 83 Ohio St.3d 429 (1998) (manner of charging is procedural, binding after conviction)
- State v. Koval, 2006-Ohio-5377 (2006) (multicount indictment signed by foreman sufficient when full document provided)
- State v. Ballow, 9th Dist. No. 2527-M (1996) (indictment signed on one page suffices; full indictment provided to defendant)
- State v. Bray, 2011-Ohio-4660 (2011) (no requirement that foreman sign every page/count; signed and read waived suffices)
- Ruch v. State, 111 Ohio St. 580 (1924) (multicount indictment valid if foreman signs and ‘a true bill’ appears)