State v. Weston, 2014 Ohio 4252

On March 30, 2011, Doretha Weston (driver) and Desiree Johnson (passenger) were stopped by undercover officers; incidents during the stop led to criminal charges.
Original charges (felonies and misdemeanors) were filed March 31, 2011; Weston waived a preliminary hearing and the State dismissed certain misdemeanors without prejudice while binding over felonies to the grand jury.
The grand jury returned misdemeanor obstructing-official-business indictments; the State re-filed misdemeanor driving-under-suspension and resisting-arrest charges against Weston on March 15, 2012.
Weston and Johnson filed an internal-affairs complaint and a §1983 civil-rights action; the §1983 complaint was filed March 29, 2012 (after the March 15, 2012 re-filing).
Defendants moved to dismiss the re-filed charges for vindictive prosecution and/or a broken plea bargain; the trial court denied the motion.
A jury convicted Weston of obstructing official business and driving under suspension; she appealed, arguing vindictive prosecution and plain error from prosecutor’s closing remarks.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Vindictive prosecution (re-filed charges)	No vindictiveness; prosecutor exercised permissible charging discretion and had probable cause for misdemeanor charges	Weston argued re-filing was retaliation for her jury demand and/or civil suit and thus a presumption of vindictiveness arose	No presumption: re-filing occurred pretrial and before the §1983 suit; defendant failed to prove actual vindictive motive; motion to dismiss properly overruled
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (comments about suing officers)	Prosecutor may comment on evidence and reasonable inferences; no contemporaneous objection was made	Weston argued prosecutor inflamed jury by urging conviction to prevent a civil suit and by implying civic duty to convict; sought reversal for plain error	Statements improper but not plain error; overwhelming evidence of guilt meant remarks did not affect outcome; conviction upheld

United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (prosecutor has broad pretrial charging discretion; no presumption of vindictiveness in pretrial charging decisions)
Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (presumption of vindictiveness where charging increases after exercise of protected right)
Thigpen v. Roberts, 468 U.S. 27 (discussing due-process protection from vindictive prosecution)
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (punishing a defendant for exercising legal rights violates due process)
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (context for vindictiveness/punishment concerns)
State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (preserving plain-error review when no contemporaneous objection)