Yambrisak v. State
2017 Ohio 7310
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Byron E. Yambrisak was indicted for retaliation and intimidation (felonies) after an incident on July 15, 2011; a jury convicted him and he served ~10 months before release.
- This court reversed those convictions on appeal (ordered acquittals) in 2013, finding the statements were not sufficiently specific, immediate, or unconditional to constitute unlawful threats for retaliation/intimidation.
- Yambrisak sued under R.C. 2743.48 seeking a declaration of wrongful imprisonment; the State defended that other criminal charges remained possible based on the same conduct.
- At the wrongful-imprisonment bench trial, the court considered trial transcripts and testimony showing Yambrisak yelled racial slurs and threats at Detective Pat Smith; Yambrisak admitted making the slurs.
- The trial court denied wrongful-imprisonment relief, finding Yambrisak proved prong (5) (the charged offenses were not committed by him) but failed prong (4) because the State could still bring an ethnic-intimidation charge (a fifth-degree felony with a six-year statute of limitations).
- On appeal, the court affirmed: because a colorable, legally permissible charge (ethnic intimidation) could still be brought, Yambrisak cannot satisfy R.C. 2743.48(A)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yambrisak is a "wrongfully imprisoned individual" under R.C. 2743.48(A) | Yambrisak argues he satisfied all statutory elements, including that no further prosecution can or will be brought (prong 4), and that the charged offenses were not committed by him (prong 5) | State argues a separate charge (ethnic intimidation) may lawfully be brought based on the same conduct, so prong 4 is not satisfied | Held for State: prong 5 met but prong 4 not met because a colorable ethnic-intimidation prosecution remains possible |
| Whether an acquittal/reversal on insufficiency establishes actual innocence for wrongful-imprisonment purposes | Yambrisak contends the appellate acquittal establishes he did not commit the charged offenses | State relies on precedent requiring affirmative proof of innocence beyond an acquittal or legal insufficiency | Court held acquittal/insufficiency does not alone satisfy the statute; claimant must prove innocence by preponderance |
| Whether the trial court erred in finding facts sufficient to support a potential ethnic-intimidation charge | Yambrisak contends facts do not support a separate prosecutable offense | State contends the facts (racial slurs and threats) support a colorable ethnic-intimidation charge and statute of limitations has not run | Court found the record supports a colorable ethnic-intimidation charge and statute of limitations remained, so denial was proper |
| Proper interpretation of "can or will be brought" in R.C. 2743.48(A)(4) | Yambrisak urges a narrow reading that the State will not bring new charges here | State cites case law interpreting "can or will be brought" to require that no legally permissible prosecution remain | Court followed precedent: "can" means legally supportable and permissible prosecutions; plausible future prosecution bars relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bundy v. State, 143 Ohio St.3d 237 (2015) (discusses wrongful-imprisonment standards and limits of acquittal/insufficiency)
- Doss v. State, 135 Ohio St.3d 211 (2012) (requires affirmative proof of innocence by preponderance for wrongful-imprisonment relief)
- C.K. v. State, 145 Ohio St.3d 322 (2015) (interprets "can or will be brought" to require no legally permissible future prosecution)
- Gover v. State, 67 Ohio St.3d 93 (1993) (statutory requirement that no criminal proceeding can be brought filters out claimants who were engaging in other criminal conduct)
- Walden v. State, 47 Ohio St.3d 47 (1989) (acquittal does not establish actual innocence for wrongful-imprisonment statute)
- State v. Cress, 112 Ohio St.3d 72 (2006) (construing "unlawful threat of harm" element relevant to intimidation statutes)