190 Ohio App. 3d 385
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- City of Cincinnati prosecutes Homesales, Inc. for violating city orders to remedy defects at a dilapidated property (2619 Harrison Ave.).
- Homesales, an absentee corporate owner, failed to appear in municipal court after service by affidavit through its statutory agent.
- Trial court dismissed the case, ruling the city could not proceed in Homesales’ absence.
- City relied on Cincinnati Municipal Code 902-8 to initiate and proceed with the trial absent the defendant’s appearance.
- Ohio Supreme Court later held in Cleveland v. Washington Mut. Bank that absentia trials are improper when a defendant has not authorized the proceeding and has not appeared.
- Court concluded Crim.R. 43 and constitutional protections require the defendant’s physical presence, making absentia trials unlawful in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May absentia trials be authorized by Cincinnati Municipal Code 902-8? | Cincinnati argues 902-8 authorizes absentia proceedings against organizations. | Homesales contends absentia trials violate Crim.R. 43 and constitutional rights. | No; absentia trials are not authorized under 902-8 when the defendant has not appeared. |
| Do Crim.R. 43(A) and constitutional rights require the defendant's presence at trial? | Crim.R. 43(A) supports proceeding without appearance if not waived. | Presence is mandatory under Crim.R. 43(A) and the Ohio/US constitutions. | Yes; defendant must be physically present at every stage of trial, absent a waiver. |
| Can a municipal code override constitutional and Crim.R. 43 requirements by permitting absentia? | Code authorizes proceeding despite absence. | Constitutional provisions and Crim.R. 43 override such a code provision. | No; home-rule/ statutory language cannot negate constitutional rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. Washington Mut. Bank, 125 Ohio St.3d 541, 2010-Ohio-2219 (Ohio 2010) (limits on absentia prosecutions for corporations)
- Cleveland v. Destiny Ventures, L.L.C., 125 Ohio St.3d 540, 2010-Ohio-2320 (Ohio 2010) (related holding on absentia authority under municipal charges)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970) (necessity of presence to confront witnesses)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (right to confrontation and presence in court)
- State v. Williams, 6 Ohio St.3d 281, 452 N.E.2d 1323 (Ohio 1983) (presence required for trial proceedings)
- State v. Meade, 80 Ohio St.3d 419, 686 N.E.2d 278 (Ohio 1997) (Crim.R. 43 presence principle)
- Struthers v. Sokol, 108 Ohio St. 263, 140 N.E. 519 (Ohio 1923) (historical view on presence in trials)