State v. HamptonState v. Hampton
Rendered on July 14, 2011
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellant.
Jonathan T. Tyack and Thomas M. Tyack, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
KLATT, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, the state оf Ohio, seeks to appeal as a matter of right and with leave of court a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting defendant-appellee, Emmanuel Hampton‘s, motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to
Factual and Procedural Background
{¶3} At trial, testimony in the state‘s case-in-chief made it clear that the home invasion did not occur in Franklin County. After the state rested its case, Hampton moved, pursuant to
{¶4} The state seeks to appeal the trial court‘s judgment entry and assigns the following errors:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT VENUE HAD NOT BEEN WAIVED BY DEFENDANT.
II. EVEN IF THE VENUE CHALLENGE WAS PROPERLY PRESERVED, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY REFUSING TO ORDER A MISTRIAL.
R.C. 2945.67(A) and the State‘s Authority to Appеal in Criminal Cases
{¶5} We first address the state‘s authority to appeal the trial court‘s judgment entry.
{¶6}
A prosecuting attorney * * * may appeal as a matter of right any decision of a trial court in a criminal case, * * * which decision grants a motion to dismiss all or any part of an indictment, complaint, or information, a motion to suppress evidence, or a motion for the return of seized property or grants post conviction relief pursuant to sections 2953.21 to 2953.24 of the Revised Code, and may appeal by leave of the court to whiсh the appeal is taken any other decision, except the final verdict, of the trial court in a criminal case[.]
{¶7} Simply put, this statute allows the state to appeal certain specified decisions as a matter of right and any other decision in a criminal case, except the final verdict, by leave of court.
{¶8} Here, the trial court entered a judgment of acquittal pursuant to
{¶9} In State v. Keeton (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 379, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered a judgment of acquittal granted pursuant to
{¶10} Here, the trial court‘s judgment entry states that:
For the reasons set forth on the record at the time of hearing on Tuesday October 12, 2010, Defendant‘s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure based strictly on the issue of Venue is well taken, and is hereby granted as to Counts One, Two, Three and Four. The clerk shall note Defendant‘s acquittal in the Court record, and Defendant is hereby discharged in this matter.
On its face, the trial court‘s judgment entry grants Hampton a judgment of acquittal pursuant to
{¶11} The state, however, contends that the trial court did not acquit Hampton. Instead, the state argues that the trial court “dismissed” the case, one of the specified decisions the state may appeal as a matter of right pursuant to
{¶12} Hampton‘s counsel requested a judgment of acquittal pursuant to
{¶13} In spite of the trial court‘s clear language, the state seeks to divine the trial court‘s true “intent” through statements it made at the hearing. However, “[i]t is well-established that a court only speaks through its journal entries and not by oral pronouncement or through decisions.” State v. Smith, 12th Dist. No. CA2009-02-038, 2010-Ohio-1721, ¶59 (citing Schenley v. Kauth (1953), 160 Ohio St. 109); State v. Wimer (Oct. 16, 2001), 10th Dist. No. 01AP-288. Here, the trial court entered a judgment of acquittal.
{¶14} The state also argues that the trial court must have dismissed the case for lack of venue because venue issues cannot be resolved by a
{¶15} The plain language of
{¶17} For example, in State v. Spak (July 5, 1996), 11th Dist. No. 95-P-0092, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed a trial court‘s pretrial dismissal of a number of offenses based on improper venue and remanded those charges for trial. However, the court noted that it would be incumbеnt on the state to prove venue at trial, and that “[s]hould the facts and circumstances presented by the [state] fail to demonstrate * * * venue is proper, appellee may move the court for acquittal on those charges pursuant to
{¶18} The Twelfth District Court of Appeals also allows
{¶19} Other Ohio cоurts have reached the same conclusion by implication. State v. Matz, 5th Dist. No. 08COA021, 2009-Ohio-3048, ¶16-17 (affirming denial of
{¶20} The import of these cases is clear: venue is a proper issue for determination by a
{¶21} Accordingly, we deny the state‘s motion for leave to appeal and dismiss the state‘s purported appeal as a matter of right.
Motion for leave to appeal denied; case dismissed.
BRYANT, P.J., and CONNOR, J., concur.