THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. MBODJI, APPELLANT.
No. 2010-0819
Supreme Court of Ohio
June 21, 2011
129 Ohio St.3d 325, 2011-Ohio-2880
Submitted March 2, 2011
LANZINGER, J.
{¶ 1} The issue before us is whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed against a defendant when a private citizen signs a complaint and affidavit charging the defendant with a crime but the complaint and affidavit are not reviewed by a reviewing official pursuant to
I. Case Background
{¶ 2} Mor Mbodji, the appellant, was charged with domestic violence, a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence of the first degree. His wife, Katrina McCall, filed an affidavit and complaint with the clerk of courts for the Hamilton County Municipal Court. The complaint included a statement of the essential facts of the crime alleged as well as the numerical designation of the statute violated. The complaint was sworn to, but no judge, magistrate, or prosecutor reviewed the affidavit or complaint before it was filed.
{¶ 3} Mbodji was arrested the following day. He entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded to a bench trial, after which he was found guilty of domestic violence and was sentenced to eight months of community control. The sentence was stayed pending appeal.
{¶ 4} The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, overruling Mbodji‘s assignments of error, including his assignment asserting that the trial court did not have jurisdiction because the complaint and affidavit were not reviewed by a “reviewing official” within the meaning of
{¶ 5} We hold that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the victim‘s domestic-violence complaint. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
II. Analysis
A. The statute, R.C. 2935.09(D)
{¶ 6} A private citizen may cause the arrest or prosecution of a person charged with committing an offense if the citizen complies with
{¶ 7} The General Assembly amended
{¶ 8} There is no question that Mbodji‘s wife was a private citizen who went to the clerk‘s office and presented an affidavit and a sworn complaint to the clerk. The clerk did not forward the documents to a reviewing official for review, but instead immediately issued a warrant for Mbodji‘s arrest. Because the parties do not dispute that
{¶ 9} Mbodji argues that the complaint was not valid and that therefore the trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed. This argument was made for the first time in the court of appeals, but Mbodji asserts that it is appropriately raised because “the defense of subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived.” State v. Sharp, 5th Dist. Nos. 08 CA 2, 08 CA 3, and 08 CA 4, 2009-Ohio-1854, 2009 WL 1040299, ¶ 15. The state responds that the complaint was properly filed because it complied with
B. Meaning of Jurisdiction and Crim.R. 3
{¶ 10} The term “jurisdiction” refers to the court‘s statutory or constitutional authority to hear a case. Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 11. The concept encompasses jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case as well as jurisdiction over the person. Id. Because subject-matter jurisdiction involves a court‘s power to hear a case, the issue can never be waived or forfeited and may be raised at any time. Id. In contrast, a challenge to
{¶ 11} Municipal courts are created by statute,
{¶ 12} The filing of a complaint invokes the jurisdiction of the municipal court. State v. Miller (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 113, 114, 547 N.E.2d 399, citing State v. Craig (Mar. 12, 1986), Hamilton App. No. C-850444, 1986 WL 3096, *2.
{¶ 13} The complaint filed in this case was valid under
C. The Remedy of Crim.R. 12(C)
{¶ 14} To the extent that Mbodji argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction, he is challenging either the institution of his prosecution or the validity of the complaint.
{¶ 15} “Prior to trial, any party may raise by motion any defense, objection, evidentiary issue, or request that is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue. The following must be raised before trial:
{¶ 17} “(2) Defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment, information, or complaint (other than failure to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense, which objections shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of the proceeding).”
{¶ 18} As stated in
{¶ 19} We reject the appellant‘s proposition that
{¶ 20} We emphasize, however, that
III. Conclusion
{¶ 21} We hold that a complaint that meets the requirements of
{¶ 22} In this case, a
{¶ 23} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
PFEIFER and O‘DONNELL, JJ., dissent.
{¶ 24} Respectfully, I dissent.
{¶ 25} A complaint charging a person with a crime can only be filed by a party authorized by law to invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate judicial tribunal charged with hearing criminal complaints. Accordingly, a party not authorized by law to file a criminal complaint cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a judicial tribunal to hear a criminal matter. Because a private citizen is not authorized to file a criminal complaint, and because the majority has nonetheless concluded that such a filing invokes the jurisdiction of the municipal court to entertain the charged offense, I respectfully dissent.
{¶ 26} On April 16, 2009, Katrina McCall prepared and filed a handwritten affidavit and signed a document notarized by the deputy clerk titled a “complaint” with the clerk of the Hamilton County Municipal Court, alleging that Mor Mbodji, her husband, had caused physical harm to her. The clerk, without having forwarded the documents to a reviewing official for filing by a prosecutor, issued a warrant to the police chief of Forest Park to have Mbodji brought before the Hamilton County Municipal Court to answer the complaint. The matter proceeded to a bench trial, and the court convicted Mbodji and sentenced him to eight months of community control.
{¶ 27} The principal issue in this case is whether the municipal court ever obtained jurisdiction to convict Mbodji in this situation where the complaint and affidavit were submitted by a private citizen without review by a reviewing official and not filed by a prosecuting attorney.
{¶ 28}
{¶ 29} In
{¶ 30} I would acknowledge that a complaint meeting the requirements of
{¶ 31} Here, however, by accepting the proposition that a municipal court has jurisdiction to consider a criminal complaint initiated by a private citizen, the majority opens the door to a myriad of unintended consequences, such as the filing of criminal charges by an inmate against a victim of a crime which resulted in the inmate‘s incarceration; it invites quarrelling neighbors to escalate differences into the criminal realm; and other endless possibilities. I would submit that these kinds of situations prompted the legislature to act to specify a manner for the lawful filing of criminal complaints by private citizens. According to the majority‘s rationale, any inmate could file a criminal case and cause an arrest warrant to be served on a victim, which that victim must defend against, and it is only after the victim has been arrested and required to appear in court that a challenge to the sufficiency of the filing of the complaint could be presented. This is the type of legal exercise that the General Assembly sought to prevent by requiring a private citizen to file an affidavit with a reviewing official who would first assess the matter and determine whether a prosecuting attorney should file a complaint. These basics of procedural due process somehow get lost in the majority‘s rush to resolve this case.
{¶ 32} Here, Katrina McCall, Mbodji‘s wife, lacked statutory authority to file a criminal complaint against him and cause his arrest. The statute limited her to submitting an affidavit to a reviewing official. Although she filed an affidavit, no reviewing official ever reviewed it, and no prosecutor or other attorney authorized to prosecute criminal cases filed the criminal complaint. Under these circumstances, I would assert that the procedure followed by the Hamilton County clerk of courts is contrary to law, creates great potential for abuse, and, importantly, failed to properly invoke the court‘s jurisdiction to act and thereby denied Mbodji procedural due process. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
Law Office of the Hamilton County Public Defender, Robert R. Hastings Jr., and Susannah Meyer, for appellant.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Terrence K. Scott, Assistant Public Defender, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Public Defender.