State v. Sieminski
2017 Ohio 5480
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On March 13, 2016, Sieminski was treated with NARCAN after an apparent overdose; deputies searched the home and found contraband.
- A Lorain County grand jury indicted Sieminski on one felony drug-possession count and two misdemeanor paraphernalia counts.
- Sieminski moved to dismiss under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b), claiming immunity for seeking medical assistance for an overdose.
- The trial court granted the motion, concluding the statute’s immunity applied even though the alleged offense preceded the statute’s effective date.
- The State appealed; the court of appeals reviewed the retroactivity issue de novo and reversed the trial court, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sieminski) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) applies to offenses committed before its effective date | The statute is prospective only; it should not apply to pre-enactment offenses | The statute’s remedial purpose and its language barring arrest/charge/prosecution show intent to apply retroactively | Court: Statute contains no express retroactive language; presumption of prospectivity controls — immunity does not apply retroactively (State’s assignment II sustained) |
| Whether the trial court applied the correct retroactivity test | Trial court failed to address the two-step retroactivity analysis fully | Trial court applied legislative purpose to infer retroactivity | Court: Because the statute lacks express retroactivity, trial court erred to infer retroactivity; second prong not reached (assignment I rendered moot) |
| Whether Sieminski qualified as a "qualified individual" under the statute | Sieminski was not necessarily a qualified individual under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii) | Sieminski claimed she satisfied the statutory qualification by seeking medical assistance | Court: Issue moot after reversing on retroactivity; trial court’s qualification finding not addressed on merits (assignment III moot) |
| Whether all charges should have been dismissed under the statute (scope of immunity) | Immunity applies only to minor drug possession; not to all charges; dismissal of all counts was improper | Sieminski argued immunity warranted dismissal of the indictment | Court: Moot after reversal; trial court’s blanket dismissal of all counts not adjudicated on appeal (assignment IV moot) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 132 Ohio St.3d 344 (2012) (sets two-step analysis for retroactivity: legislative intent then remedial/substantive inquiry)
- Bielat v. Bielat, 87 Ohio St.3d 350 (2000) (retroactivity requires clear legislative language; remedial statutes may be retroactive)
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998) (application of statutes to previously convicted/sentenced offenders where legislature clearly intended retroactivity)
- State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 (2007) (statute must clearly proclaim retroactivity; absence means prospective application)