State v. Miller

2025 Ohio 865 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District · March 14, 2025 · No. 2025-CA-6

Summary

The Second District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the trial court's order striking a minor victim's motion to modify a criminal defendant's bond conditions. The court reasoned that while Marsy's Law and R.C. 2930.09 grant crime victims the right to be present and heard at public proceedings, they do not authorize victims to file standalone pretrial motions to modify bond outside of those proceedings. The court also overruled assignments of error regarding the victim's standing and right to testify during the hearing.

Court
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District
Writing for the Court
TUCKER, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
March 14, 2025
Docket number
2025-CA-6
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Greene County Common Pleas Court’s entry and order striking Minor Victim’s bond‑modification motion and overruling the State’s motion to remove attorney Boone as Minor Victim’s representative.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
Minor Victim v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of reviewdue process

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a guardian ad litem appointed in a juvenile dependency proceeding has standing to file pretrial motions on behalf of a crime victim in a criminal case.
  2. Whether a crime victim has standing to file a pretrial motion to modify a defendant’s bond under Marsy’s Law and R.C. 2930.09.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the victim the right to be heard at a public proceeding concerning bond conditions.
  4. Whether the trial court’s findings regarding attorney Boone’s delay and material‑witness status warrant reversal.

Holdings

  1. The trial court’s finding that the guardian ad litem lacked standing is affirmed; the assignment of error is overruled.
  2. The trial court correctly held that Marsy’s Law and R.C. 2930.09 do not grant a victim the right to file a stand‑alone bond‑modification motion outside a public proceeding; the assignment of error is overruled.
  3. The trial court did not err; because the victim lacked a right to file the motion, the court was not required to hear his testimony on bond conditions.
  4. The trial court’s findings on delay and material‑witness status do not warrant reversal; the assignment of error is overruled.

Key quotations

Article I, Section 10a of the Ohio Constitution grants a crime victim the right “to be present” at “public proceedings” involving the crime against the victim. (¶ 16)
R.C. 2930.09(D) gives a crime victim “the right to be present and be heard … at any proceeding in which the court conducts a hearing on the post‑arrest release of the person accused of committing a criminal offense … or the conditions of that release, including the arraignment or initial appearance.” (¶ 16)

Factual background

In August 2024 a grand jury indicted Stephani M. Miller for felonious assault, child endangering, and domestic violence. The minor victim was the alleged victim and Miller was released on bond with a no‑contact provision. The victim’s guardian ad litem, Nathan D. Boone, filed a bond‑modification motion in October 2024, which the trial court struck. The victim later retained Boone as counsel and filed another motion to modify the bond, which the trial court again struck on January 31, 2025.

Procedural history

The trial court struck a motion filed by the victim’s guardian ad litem to modify the defendant’s bond and overruled the State’s motion to remove the victim’s counsel. The victim appealed, asserting standing and Marsy’s Law rights.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…