2023 Ohio 2127
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- On May 3, 2022 Pataskala police stopped Raven Parker, learned dispatch showed an active warrant out of Portage County, and with consent searched her car, finding a loaded handgun in the glove compartment.
- Parker was indicted on: (1) Having Weapons While Under Disability (R.C. 2923.13(A)(1)) — alleged because she was a “fugitive from justice,” and (2) Improper Handling of Firearms in a Motor Vehicle (R.C. 2923.16(B)).
- Parker moved to dismiss, arguing under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen that the statutes are unconstitutional as applied to her (an as‑applied Second Amendment challenge).
- The trial court held a non‑oral consideration of the motion, found the State failed to show historical tradition supporting disarming someone merely alleged to be a fugitive, and granted dismissal of both counts.
- The State appealed the dismissal; the appellate court reviewed the Crim.R.12 as‑applied constitutional ruling de novo and affirmed, finding the State failed to meet Bruen’s historical‑tradition burden and had not developed factual context for the Portage County warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2923.13(A)(1) and R.C. 2923.16(B) are unconstitutional as applied to a person alleged to be a fugitive from justice | The statutes validly disqualify non‑law‑abiding persons (here, Parker as a fugitive); historical analogues support regulation of persons likely to breach the peace | Bruen requires the State to show historical tradition for disarming Parker; mere existence of a warrant does not strip Second Amendment protection | The State failed to carry its Bruen burden; the court affirmed dismissal as applied to Parker |
| Whether the trial court erred by deciding the motion without an evidentiary hearing | The State needed an evidentiary hearing to prove Parker’s fugitive status and justify application of the statutes | No objection was made to the noticed non‑oral hearing; the State failed to develop the factual record explaining the warrant | No reversible error; the State did not request a hearing or provide the necessary factual context, so dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (established historical‑tradition test and shifted burden to government for firearm regulations)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (applied Second Amendment to the states)
- Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U.S. 36 (1961) (interpreting scope of constitutional protections referenced in Bruen)
- United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023) (applies Bruen and explains government’s historical‑analogue burden)
- United States v. Kays, 624 F. Supp. 3d 1262 (D. Utah 2022) (upheld restrictions for certain categories based on historical surety laws; distinguished here)
- State v. Palmer, 131 Ohio St.3d 278 (2012) (Crim.R.12 may permit pretrial dismissal when indictment cannot state a valid offense)