THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. TOWNS, SHERIFF, APPELLANT.
No. 2020-1503
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
October 18, 2022
Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3632
BRUNNER, J.
Submitted November 10, 2021. APPEAL
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Towns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3632.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-3632
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Rеports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Towns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3632.]
Criminal law—
BRUNNER, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
{¶ 1} This case concerns a sheriff who was found guilty of a violation of
{¶ 2} We hold that
{¶ 3} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 4} On June 20, 2019, a special agent of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (whose assistance had been requested by special prosecutors) filed a three-count complaint in the Bryan Municipal Court of Williams County, Ohio, against appellant, Steven Towns, who was then the Williams County sheriff. The charges included a violation of
{¶ 5} In his motion, Towns presented аrguments about the constitutionality of the statutes under which he was being prosecuted, the jurisdiction of the court to proceed, and what he perceived to be the selective nature of the prosecution. Relevant to the issue before this court, he argued that violations оf
{¶ 6} On October 21, 2019, the trial court denied the motion without stating its reasons for doing so. After the state voluntarily dismissed some of the charges, the remaining charges were tried to a jury. The jury fоund Towns guilty of disclosing confidential information in violation of
{¶ 7} On appeal, the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed Towns‘s conviction, overruling seven assignments of error. 2020-Ohio-5120, ¶ 32. The Sixth District specifically considered the issue that is now before this court: may a criminal prosecution be brought alleging a violation of
{¶ 8} Towns appealed and asked this court to accept jurisdiction of multiple propositions of law. However, the court accepted the case on only the proposition of law questioning whether the prosecutor‘s action against Towns could proсeed. See 161 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2021-Ohio-534, 163 N.E.3d 586.
III. DISCUSSION
{¶ 9} The facts of this case are not in dispute. The question presented is one of interpretation of law, and we review questions of law de novo. See State v. Taylor, 163 Ohio St.3d 508, 2020-Ohio-6786, 171 N.E.3d 290, ¶ 15.
{¶ 10} Towns was convicted of violating
without appropriate authorization, аny information acquired by the public official or employee in the course of the public official‘s or employee‘s official duties that is confidential because of statutory provisions, or that has been clearly designated to the public official or employee as confidential when that confidential designation is warranted because of the status of the proceedings or the circumstances
under which the information was received and preserving its confidentiality is necessary to the proper conduct of government business.
A violation of
{¶ 11} Generally, in Ohio, the authority that can be exercised by county prosecuting attorneys and city attorneys or law directors is established by enabling acts.
{¶ 12}
{¶ 13} The subject оf the complaint is afforded notice, a hearing, and a statement of the charges and the “law directly involved” as well as the opportunity to be represented by counsel, to have counsel appointed if “unable to afford counsel without undue hardship,” to examine the evidence against him, to produce evidence and to call and subpoena witnesses in his defense, to confront his accusers, and to cross-examine witnesses.
{¶ 14} If the commission finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts alleged in the complaint are true, it is required to report its findings to the appropriate prosecuting authority.3
{¶ 15} Nothing in
{¶ 16}
{¶ 17} What little caselaw exists on the question appears to confirm this reading. In State v. Morrison, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24965, 2010-Ohio-6309, a trustee of the University of Akron was charged with having an unlawful interest in a public contract. The university sought to purchase property from the trustee‘s son that the son had purchased with financing from his father, the trustee. The Ohio Ethiсs Commission docketed the matter as a “charge” and issued preliminary findings that it forwarded to the Summit County prosecutor‘s office. Morrison sought to dismiss the charges, arguing that the findings were premature and that his due-process rights had been violated because the commission had not filed an administrаtive complaint or held a hearing. The Ninth District Court of Appeals concluded that the sharing of information was permitted and that the prosecution was “not commenced in violation of [the trustee‘s] due process rights.” The court of appeals affirmed the trial court‘s refusal tо dismiss the charges against Morrison.
Id. at ¶ 21.4 In other words, in Morrison‘s case, the prosecution existed independently of the ethics investigation and the court of appeals found that the prosecution was valid even though the ethics investigation had not concluded.
{¶ 18} In other contexts, statutes have specifically made an administrative process a prerequisite to the initiation and prosecution of criminal charges. See, e.g.,
{¶ 19} The General Assembly could have chosen to require the ethics commission to issue findings as a gateway to criminal prosecution, but it did not do so. We hold that because no statute indicates otherwise, proceedings before the Ohio Ethics Commission are not a prerequisite to an appropriate prosecuting authority bringing charges alleging a violation of
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶ 20} A person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Ohio Ethics Cоmmission may be criminally prosecuted for a violation of
contemplates both the independent filing of charges by the appropriate prosecuting authоrity and the filing of ethics complaints before the appropriate ethics commission, thus providing a means for alleged ethical violations to be considered and resolved by the commission even while charges brought by the appropriate prosecuting authority are сonsidered and resolved in a court.
{¶ 21} For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur.
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only.
Mark R. Weaver, Ryan Stubenrauch, and David C. Moser, for appellee.
Groth and Associates and Henry Schaefer, for appellant.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, Benjamin M. Flowers, Solicitor General, Michael J. Hendershot, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, and Paul M. Nick, Assistant Attorney General, urging affirmance on behalf of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost.
Steven L. Taylor, urging affirmance on behalf of amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
Notes
“Appropriate ethics commission” means:
(1) For matters relating to membеrs of the general assembly, employees of the general assembly, employees of the legislative service commission, and candidates for the office of member of the general assembly, the joint legislative ethics committee;
(2) For matters relating to judicial officers and employees, and candidates for judicial office, the board of commissioners on grievances and discipline of the supreme court;
(3) For matters relating to all other persons, the Ohio ethics commission.