State v. Poirier, 2021 Ohio 1743

Around midnight on April 28, 2020, Poirier allegedly assaulted his girlfriend, pointed a Sig Sauer M17 at her head, and choked her; police responded and arrested him after he violently resisted, injuring officers.
Officers seized three handguns and a shotgun from Poirier; the Sig Sauer was identified as the weapon pointed at the victim.
Poirier pleaded guilty to one count of resisting arrest (misdemeanor 2nd degree). At plea/sentencing he sought return of his firearms; defense filed a sentencing memorandum requesting return.
At sentencing the trial court placed Poirier on up to five years community control and ordered the three handguns “remanded to the arresting agency for disposal” while returning the shotgun.
Poirier appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to order forfeiture because the charging information contained no forfeiture specification nor did the State give notice under Crim.R. 7; he also argued the forfeiture was an abuse of discretion. The appellate court vacated the handgun-disposal order and remanded for reconsideration of property return; the remainder of the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could order forfeiture/disposal of firearms absent a forfeiture specification in the charging instrument or prompt notice under Crim.R. 7	The court had discretion under community-control authority to order confiscation/disposal to protect victim/public; the disposition was within sentencing authority	No forfeiture specification or Crim.R. 7 notice was given; Chapter 2981 requires statutory procedures for forfeiture, so the court lacked authority to permanently deprive property	The order to remand firearms for disposal amounted to forfeiture. Because the State did not invoke criminal or civil forfeiture procedures and the information contained no specification, the court had no statutory authority to order disposal; vacated.
Whether imposing permanent forfeiture as a community-control condition was an abuse of discretion	Community-control sanctions are broad and may restrict possession to protect public safety	Forfeiture is permanent deprivation requiring statutory process; a possession prohibition during supervision is permissible but permanent disposal exceeds community-control power	The court may impose a no-possession condition during supervision, but it cannot, outside Chapter 2981 procedures, order permanent forfeiture as a community-control condition. Imposing disposal was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated; remand limited to reconsideration of return since community control was later terminated.

State v. Darmond, 986 N.E.2d 971 (Ohio 2013) (defines when a trial court abuses its discretion)
State v. Pierce, 968 N.E.2d 1019 (Ohio 2011) (legal error is an abuse of discretion)
State v. Christian, 56 N.E.3d 391 (Ohio App. 2016) (forfeiture statutes are to be narrowly construed and forfeiture is disfavored)
Dayton Police Dept. v. Byrd, 938 N.E.2d 1110 (Ohio App. 2010) (courts favor individual property rights in forfeiture context)
Ohio Dept. of Liquor Control v. Sons of Italy Lodge 0917, 605 N.E.2d 368 (Ohio 1992) (interpret forfeiture statutes to favor property rights)
State v. McMeen, 25 N.E.3d 422 (Ohio App. 2014) (trial court lacked authority to order forfeiture where charging document had no specification)
State v. Bolton, 97 N.E.3d 37 (Ohio App. 2017) (where statutory forfeiture procedures not met, trial court must reverse/dispose appropriately)
State v. Bowser, 926 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio App. 2010) (sentencing courts enjoy broad discretion in crafting probation/community-control conditions)