Ohio Wrongful Inprisonment

The Ohio Supreme Court followed its 20-year-old precedent this morning in ruling that "All wrongful-imprisonment claimants must follow a two-step process. In the first step, the claimant must bring an action in the court of common pleas to secure a determination that he or she is a wrongfully imprisoned individual entitled to compensation. In the second step, the claimant must file a civil action against the state, in the Court of Claims, to recover a sum of money… Only courts of common pleas have jurisdiction to determine whether a person has satisfied the five requirements of R.C.2743.48(A). .[Walden v. State (1989) ] [ Opinion and Case Summary ]

The General Assembly amended R.C. 2743.48 in 2003, the state law that authorizes persons who have been wrongfully imprisoned to recover civil damages from the state under certain circumstances. Among other changes, the 2003 amendment added language to the statute allowing recovery not only by persons who are officially exonerated of guilt for the crimes for which they were imprisoned, but also by persons whose convictions and prison sentences are vacated, dismissed or permanently overturned on appeal because of procedural errors during their trials. [ See HB 338, § 1 (2003), eff. 9/17/2010 ]

"In today's unanimous decision," the Court's summary said, "Justice Pfeifer wrote: 'appellee argues, and we do not deny, that R.C. 2743.48(A), as amended, does not state that a claim premised on a procedural error must originate in a court of common pleas. It is equally clear, however, that the statute does not explicitly state that such a claim can originate in the Court of Claims. We consider the statute ambiguous as to the sole issue before us. Accordingly, we turn to other considerations to determine the intent of the General Assembly, as permitted by R.C. 1.49

"R.C. 1.49(D) permits a court, faced with determining the legislative intent behind an ambiguous statute, to consider '[t]he common law or former statutory provisions, including laws upon the same or similar subjects' …. Under R.C. 1.49(E), the intent of the legislature in enacting an ambiguous statute may be determined by considering '[t]he consequences of a particular construction.'"