Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the 2003 amendment to Ohio Revised Code section 2743.48 applies retroactively. The amendment expanded the definition of a wrongfully imprisoned individual to include persons released because of a procedural error occurring after sentencing. The court reversed the appellate judgment and remanded for consideration of the remaining assignments of error.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the 2003 amendment to R.C. 2743.48, which expanded the definition of a wrongfully imprisoned individual to include persons released because of a procedural error occurring subsequent to sentencing, applies retroactively to a claim filed after the amendment's effective date when the imprisonment occurred before the amendment.
Holdings
- The 2003 amendment to R.C. 2743.48 applies retroactively to permit litigation of wrongful-imprisonment claims based on a post-sentencing procedural error resulting in the claimant's release, even when the imprisonment occurred before the amendment's effective date.
Key quotations
“Determining whether a law violates the Retroactivity Clause involves a two-step test: “[W]e must first ‘determine whether the General Assembly expressly intended the statute to apply retroactively.’ [Bielat at 353]. If so, we must determine whether ‘the statute is substantive, rendering it unconstitutionally retroactive, as opposed to merely remedial.’” (¶ 19)
“Thus, the 2003 amendment to R.C. 2743.48 applies retroactively to permit litigation of claims filed in accordance with that amendment.” (¶ 23)
Factual background
Johnston was convicted of the aggravated murders of Margaret Annette Cooper and Todd Schultz and sentenced to death. The convictions were reversed because the trial court admitted testimony based on hypnotically refreshed memory and the state withheld exculpatory evidence suggesting both an alternative crime scene and another possible perpetrator. After the state nolled the indictment, Johnston was released after more than six years on death row. His initial wrongful-imprisonment claim failed under the then-existing statutory requirement that he prove he had not committed the murders; after the statute was amended and another person pleaded guilty to the murders, Johnston pursued a second claim based on post-sentencing procedural error.
Procedural history
Johnston was convicted of two aggravated murders and sentenced to death, but his convictions were reversed because of improperly admitted hypnotically refreshed testimony and the state's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. After the indictment was nolled and Johnston was released, his first wrongful-imprisonment claim was dismissed in 1993. Following the 2003 amendment to R.C. 2743.48 and Chester McKnight's guilty pleas, Johnston filed a second claim; the common pleas court granted summary judgment for Johnston, but the Tenth District reversed on retroactivity grounds. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for consideration of the state's remaining assignments of error.
Remand instructions
The cause was remanded to the appellate court to address the state's remaining assignments of error that it had previously deemed moot, including issues concerning the statute of limitations, res judicata, the statutory requirements for wrongful imprisonment, and the effect of Mansaray v. State.