Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed a writ of prohibition invalidating a common pleas judge's order that restored firearms rights to a misdemeanor domestic violence offender under R.C. 2923.14. The court held that the judge's exercise of judicial power was unauthorized by law because the offender never lost his civil rights under Ohio law for a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, making the federal exception in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) inapplicable. The court also held that the victim had standing under Marsy's Law (Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 10a) to assert her rights to safety and protection, and that prohibition was an appropriate remedy because she lacked an adequate remedy at law as a nonparty. The dissent argued that Marsy's Law did not apply because the offender was no longer "the accused" and the victim suffered no injury from the unauthorized order.
Holdings
- Suwalski sufficiently asserted her rights in the common pleas court by submitting a statement in opposition to Ewing's application, and she did not fail to exhaust her claim; she had the right to petition the court of appeals for relief after Judge Peeler granted the application.
- Ewing's application to the common pleas court under R.C. 2923.14 to relieve him of his federal firearms disability was a proceeding 'involving the criminal offense' under Article I, Section 10a(B) of the Ohio Constitution, and at least two Marsy's Law rights (safety and protection) are implicated.
- Res judicata does not bar Suwalski's prohibition action because applying res judicata would be inconsistent with the constitutional rights granted to crime victims under Marsy's Law.
- Judge Peeler's grant of Ewing's application to remove his federal firearms disability was not authorized by law, and denying the writ would result in injury to Suwalski for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of the law.
Questions Presented
- Whether Suwalski failed to exhaust her claim before the trial court under Marsy's Law.
- Whether Marsy's Law applies to a proceeding for relief from a federal firearms disability.
- Whether res judicata bars Suwalski's prohibition action.
- Whether prohibition lies under the facts of this case.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (26)
- Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308, 118 S.Ct. 2007, 141 L.Ed.2d 303 (1998)(positive)
- Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23, 128 S.Ct. 475, 169 L.Ed.2d 432 (2007)(positive)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995)(distinguished)
- State ex rel. Shumaker v. Nichols, 137 Ohio St.3d 391, 2013-Ohio-4732, 999 N.E.2d 630(positive)
- State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368, 2008-Ohio-2637, 889 N.E.2d 500(positive)
- State ex rel. Thomas v. McGinty, 164 Ohio St.3d 167, 2020-Ohio-5452, 172 N.E.3d 824(distinguished)
- State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser, 50 Ohio St.2d 165, 364 N.E.2d 1 (1977)(positive)
- State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Gwin, 64 Ohio St.3d 245, 594 N.E.2d 616 (1992)(positive)
- State ex rel. Mason v. Burnside, 117 Ohio St.3d 1, 2007-Ohio-6754, 881 N.E.2d 224(positive)
- Ohio High School Athletic Assn. v. Ruehlman, 157 Ohio St.3d 296, 2019-Ohio-2845, 136 N.E.3d 436(positive)
Showing top 10 of 26.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.