STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOHN HANSON, III, Defendant-Appellant
Appellate Case No. 28057
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
September 13, 2019
2019-Ohio-3688
HALL, J.
Trial Court Case No. 2017-CRB-1925; (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
OPINION
Rendered on the 13th day of September, 2019.
CHRISTINE L. BURK, Atty. Reg. No. 0050559, 10 N. First Street, Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
HILARY LERMAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0029975, 249 Wyoming Street, Dayton, Ohio 45409
Attorney for
HALL, J.,
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, John Hanson, III, appeals from his conviction in the Miamisburg Municipal Court after he pled no contest to two counts of making a false allegation of peace officer misconduct in violation of
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On October 27, 2017, Officers Nick Bell and Brandon Mundy of the Miamisburg Police Department arrested Hanson on misdemeanor charges of failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer and disorderly conduct. Following Hanson‘s arrest, the officers transported Hanson to the Montgomery County Jail. Hanson was released from jail the next day and was thereafter charged in the Miamisburg Municipal Court with the above-named offenses. The charges were filed under Case Nos. 2017-CRB-1888(A) and (B).
{¶ 3} Upon being released from jail, Hanson called the Miamisburg Police Department and reported that Officers Bell and Mundy had beat him and shoved something up his rectum during the course of his arrest. Sergeant Josiah Keefer responded to Hanson‘s call and briefly spoke to Hanson about his accusations against the officers. During the call, Keefer asked Hanson to meet with him at the police station to discuss the matter further and to get a written statement. Hanson agreed
{¶ 4} When Hanson arrived at the police station, Keefer obtained Hanson‘s identification information and questioned him about the alleged assault by Officers Bell and Mundy. Keefer audio-recorded his conversation with Hanson and had Hanson complete a written “Witness Statement” form. On the form, Hanson wrote that the arresting officers had “tackled [him] from behind” and assaulted him by “hitting” him, “smashing [his] face into the ground [,] sticking something in [his] rectum causing [him] to bleed for the last two days.” State‘s Exhibit No. 20.
{¶ 5} During their meeting, Sergeant Keefer also had Hanson sign a document explaining the offense of making a false allegation of peace officer misconduct. Keefer explained that he wanted Hanson to sign the document in order to confirm that Hanson “understood that it was a crime to file false reports on police officers.” State‘s Exhibit Nos. 22 and 29. During the recorded conversation, Hanson told Keefer that he did not know whether the officer‘s actions were malicious but nevertheless maintained that one of the officers shoved something up his rectum. Toward the end of their conversation, Keefer told Hanson that he was going to “open an investigation, do a report, get his medical records and take photos.” State‘s Exhibit Nos. 22 and 29. After Keefer took photographs of Hanson, Hanson left the police station, and Keefer forwarded his report to Sergeant Jeffrey Muncy for further investigation.
{¶ 6} In investigating the matter further, Sergeant Muncy reviewed the cruiser camera video footage of Hanson‘s arrest, Hanson‘s jail records, the video of Hanson‘s jail booking, a Dayton medic call log, and medical records obtained from NaphCare. Based on his review, Muncy found that Hanson‘s accusations against Officers Bell and Mundy were unfounded. Upon learning that Hanson‘s allegations were false, Sergeant Muncy presented the matter to the prosecutor, who approved charging Hanson with two counts of making a false allegation of peace officer misconduct in violation of
{¶ 7} In the course of his investigation, Muncy also contacted Hanson by telephone on November 1, 2017. During this call, which was audio-recorded, Muncy advised Hanson that he was calling to follow up on Hanson‘s complaints. In response, Hanson told Muncy that he had already given his written statement to Sergeant Keefer and that he did not know what else to say. Hanson also told Muncy that he “would just like to forget about the whole thing” and that “he did not know if [the officers] purposely did it to him.” State‘s Exhibit Nos. 22 and 28. Hanson, however, still maintained that the officers beat him and shoved something up his rectum.
{¶ 8} Following this discussion, Muncy told Hanson that in order to close the case, Hanson needed to either sign a statement of non-prosecution or meet with him at the police station to further discuss the allegations. Although Hanson agreed to meet with Muncy, Hanson never appeared at the police station. After Hanson failed to appear, Muncy called Hanson again. During this second call, Hanson advised Muncy that he did not appear because he had learned from the Miamisburg Municipal
{¶ 9} After turning himself in, Hanson appeared before the trial court and pled not guilty to the two charges of making a false allegation of peace officer misconduct. The matter was thereafter set for a jury trial. However, on the day of trial, Hanson decided to accept a negotiated plea agreement with the State. As part of the plea agreement, Hanson agreed to plead no contest to both of the false allegation charges in exchange for the State dismissing the charges for failure to comply and disorderly conduct in Case Nos. 2017-CRB-1888(A) and (B).
{¶ 10} Following the trial court‘s acceptance of Hanson‘s no contest plea, the State submitted 31 exhibits in support of the charges alleging that Hanson had made false allegations of peace officer misconduct. The State‘s exhibits included the video footage of Hanson‘s October 27, 2017 arrest and jail booking, photographs of Hanson‘s alleged injuries, Hanson‘s handwritten “Witness Statement,” the recorded telephone conversations that Hanson had with Sergeants Keefer and Muncy, the police reports generated by Sergeants Keefer and Muncy, the two complaints filed against Hanson in this case, and Miami Valley Hospital records indicating that there was no “acute trauma” to Hanson‘s rectum. After the trial court noted on the record that it had “extensively” reviewed the 31 exhibits presented by the State, the trial court found there was “more than sufficient evidence to find [Hanson] guilty” of the two charges. Trans. (June 22, 2018), p. 15 and 18.
{¶ 11} After finding Hanson guilty, the trial court proceeded to sentencing. In sentencing Hanson, the trial court imposed 180 days in jail for each offense, to be served concurrently, with 175 days suspended and two days of jail-time credit. In lieu of serving three days in jail, the trial court ordered Hanson to attend and complete a 72-hour alcohol intervention program at the Ohio Intervention Center (“OIC“). The trial court also ordered Hanson to complete a drug and alcohol assessment with Dr. Mary Melton at the OIC and to complete any recommended counseling or treatment. In addition, the trial court imposed two years of reporting probation and ordered Hanson to pay a $230 fine and court costs.
{¶ 12} Hanson now appeals from his conviction, raising three assignments of error for review.
First Assignment of Error
{¶ 13} Under his first assignment of error, Hanson contends that there was insufficient evidence for the trial court to find him guilty of violating
{¶ 14} “On a plea of no contest to a misdemeanor offense,
{¶ 15} Appellate courts “review the explanation of circumstances to determine if there is sufficient evidence in the record to establish all of the elements of the offense.” State v. O‘Brien, 5th Dist. Licking No. 17-CA-14, 2017-Ohio-7219, ¶ 35, citing Cuyahoga Falls v. Bowers, 9 Ohio St.3d 148, 150, 459 N.E.2d 532 (1984). In doing so, appellate courts utilize a de novo standard of review. Id. A “[d]e novo review requires an ‘independent review of the trial court‘s decision without any deference to the trial court‘s determination.’ ” State v. Clay, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2015-CA-17, 2016-Ohio-424, ¶ 5, quoting Jackson v. Internatl. Fiber, 169 Ohio App.3d 395, 2006-Ohio-5799, 863 N.E.2d 189, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 16} In this case, after Hanson entered a no contest plea, the trial court found him guilty of making a false allegation of peace officer misconduct in violation of
{¶ 17} While the title of
{¶ 18} The term “complaint,” as it is used in
{¶ 19} The discrete issue raised in the first assignment of error is whether the phrase “file a complaint,” as it is used in
{¶ 20} First, there is no statutory authority for a private citizen to file a criminal “complaint” in court. At best, “[a] private citizen having knowledge of the facts who seeks to cause an arrest or prosecution under this section may file an affidavit charging the offense committed with a reviewing official for the purpose of review to determine if a complaint should be filed by the prosecuting attorney or attorney charged by law with the prosecution of offenses in the court or before the magistrate.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 21} Technically, even a police officer does not file a Crim.R. 3 “complaint.” In order to commence a prosecution, a peace officer may file an affidavit charging an offense directly with the clerk of a court. See
victim “constitutes reasonable ground” to believe the person named committed the offense.
{¶ 22} When there is an arrest without a warrant, meaning no court action has been initiated (no filed “complaint“), an arresting official “shall, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a court or magistrate having jurisdiction of the offense, and shall file or cause to be filed an affidavit describing the offense for which the person was arrested. Such affidavit shall be filed either with the court or magistrate, or with the prosecuting attorney * * * and if filed with such attorney he [the prosecutor] shall forthwith file with such court or magistrate a complaint, based on such affidavit.”
“criminal complaint,” their initiating document more precisely should be called “an affidavit describing the offense,” which, if it contains the elements of Crim.R. 3, would by rule constitute a criminal complaint to start the criminal process.3
{¶ 23} Invariably, in felony prosecutions where there is not an immediate arrest, criminal process is initiated with a grand jury indictment and there is no criminal “complaint” at all. That would apply to Hanson‘s felony “complaint.” In all likelihood, upon investigation, if his false allegations had been supported by evidence, the matter would have been presented to a grand jury to see if an indictment could be obtained. Neither the victim, Hanson, nor anyone else would ever file a criminal “complaint” as that term is used in Crim.R. 3. The false nature of his accusation can be just as harmful, whether or not a criminal “complaint” is filed. In any event, whether or not a Crim.R. 3 “complaint” is filed by the falsifying offender is not up to the offender and cannot be done by the offender. Therefore, limiting the terminology “file a complaint” to a Crim.R. 3 criminal complaint not only makes little
{¶ 24} Second, the vast majority of complaints against police officers are for excessive use of force or denial of civil or constitutional rights. But not all accusations of police misconduct are criminal and, even if substantiated, most are resolved by internal disciplinary action, and they never result in the filing of a criminal “complaint.” It is likely the majority of accusations, “complaints,” are made to internal affairs divisions of large departments, or to supervisors in smaller ones. But that is not the only way a knowingly false “complaint” can be filed. The United States Department of Justice investigates both individual and departmental police misconduct. Its website “explains how you can file a complaint with DOJ if you believe that your rights have been violated.”4 (Emphasis added). Moreover criminal accusations, “complaints,” are investigated by the FBI, the Civil Rights Division handles constitutional or civil rights violations, or “[y]ou may also file a complaint online at www.ada.gov/filing_complaint.htm” (emphasis added) under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the very narrow definition that “file a complaint” means only a Crim.R. 3 “complaint,” demonstrably false complaints filed with any of these agencies would escape prosecution under
{¶ 25} Third, practically speaking, when an accusation is made against a police officer, reasonable authorities conduct a thorough investigation. When that investigation reveals the accusation is demonstrably false, there would never be a criminal “complaint” against the officer, as defined by Crim.R. 3, because the accusation was shown to be false. No one would allow criminal prosecution, initiated by the filing of a criminal “complaint,” when the accusation is provably false. Therefore, limiting prosecution for a false “complaint” against a police officer only to where a Crim.R. 3 criminal “complaint” has been filed would rarely occur and would fail to address the damage caused by a false complaint especially when the accusation can be proven false beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what eventually would be required for a conviction under
{¶ 26} We recognize the decisions of several courts that have interpreted the terminology “file a complaint” in
{¶ 27} One could distinguish Davenport because that accusation was only by a tape recorded statement to a detective, not a written and signed accusation. McCaleb too involved an unsigned, faxed accusation form disputing a trooper‘s trial testimony, and there was no follow-up by the defendant. And Lester and English, municipal court cases, have less precedential influence. But we do not dwell on distinctions with these cases because we conclude they are all fundamentally wrong. These cases each suggest or determine that a defendant must file a Crim.R. 3 type of complaint in court to be prosecuted for a false accusation of police misconduct. They each fail to recognize that a private citizen has no authority and cannot file a criminal complaint in court. They each fail to recognize that an accusation found to be demonstrably false upon thorough investigation will never result in a Crim.R. 3 complaint against the officer because the accusation is known to be false. Yet those cases incorrectly use what we believe to be a wholly inapplicable and narrow definition for interpreting
{¶ 28} Hanson‘s written submission was a form titled as a “Witness Statement” mostly containing his own handwriting describing the assaults. Although not notarized, the bottom of the form stated: “By signing my name below, I swear or affirm that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.” It was signed by Hanson and a “witnessing officer.” Given the facts we have detailed and this document, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to find that Hanson filed a complaint for purposes of
{¶ 29} Hanson‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
Second Assignment of Error
{¶ 30} Under his second assignment of error, Hanson contends that there was insufficient evidence for the trial court to find that he “knowingly” filed a complaint within the meaning of
{¶ 31} A person acts “knowingly” when he is aware that his conduct probably will cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature.
{¶ 32} The second assignment of error is overruled.
Third Assignment of Error
{¶ 33} Under his third assignment of error, Hanson contends that
Conclusion
{¶ 34} Having overruled each of Hanson‘s assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
WELBAUM, P.J., concurs.
DONOVAN, J., concurs in judgment only.
Copies sent to:
Christine L. Burk
Hilary Lerman
Hon. Robert W. Rettich, III