Case Title: State v. Mbodji

Citation: 2011-Ohio-2880

Docket Number: 20100819

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State v. Mbodji, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2880.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-2880 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. MBODJI, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State v. Mbodji, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2880.] 
Criminal procedure — Crim.R. 3 and subject-matter jurisdiction — R.C. 2935.09 
— Failure to review affidavit by private citizen charging a crime not a 
jurisdictional flaw. 
(No. 2010-0819 — Submitted March 2, 2011 — Decided June 21, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-090384. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
1. A complaint that meets the requirements of Crim.R. 3 invokes the subject-
matter jurisdiction of a trial court. 
2. When a criminal complaint and affidavit are signed by a private citizen but are 
not reviewed by a reviewing official before filing pursuant to R.C. 
2935.09, the defect is not jurisdictional but may be the subject of a 
Crim.R. 12(C) motion before trial. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
 
LANZINGER, J. 
{¶ 1} The issue before us is whether a trial court has subject-matter 
jurisdiction to proceed against a defendant when a private citizen signs a 
complaint and affidavit charging the defendant with a crime but the complaint and 
affidavit are not reviewed by a reviewing official pursuant to R.C. 2935.09.  We 
hold that a complaint that meets the requirements of Crim.R. 3 invokes the 
subject-matter jurisdiction of a trial court.  When a complaint and affidavit are 
signed by a private citizen but are not reviewed by a reviewing official before 
filing pursuant to R.C. 2935.09, the defect is not jurisdictional but may be the 
subject of a Crim.R. 12(C) motion before trial. 
I.  Case Background 
{¶ 2} Mor Mbodji, the appellant, was charged with domestic violence, a 
misdemeanor offense of domestic violence of the first degree.  His wife, Katrina 
McCall, filed an affidavit and complaint with the clerk of courts for the Hamilton 
County Municipal Court.  The complaint included a statement of the essential 
facts of the crime alleged as well as the numerical designation of the statute 
violated.  The complaint was sworn to, but no judge, magistrate, or prosecutor 
reviewed the affidavit or complaint before it was filed. 
{¶ 3} Mbodji was arrested the following day.  He entered a plea of not 
guilty and proceeded to a bench trial, after which he was found guilty of domestic 
violence and was sentenced to eight months of community control.  The sentence 
was stayed pending appeal. 
{¶ 4} The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, 
overruling Mbodji’s assignments of error, including his assignment asserting that 
the trial court did not have jurisdiction because the complaint and affidavit were 
not reviewed by a “reviewing official” within the meaning of R.C. 2935.09.  The 
court of appeals held that the trial court had jurisdiction despite lack of review and 
later denied a motion for reconsideration.  We accepted for review the following 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
proposition of law:  “Where the complaint and affidavit are signed by a private 
citizen, without being reviewed by a reviewing official, the trial court is without 
jurisdiction to proceed against the defendant.” 
{¶ 5} We hold that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the 
victim’s domestic-violence complaint.  We therefore affirm the judgment of the 
court of appeals. 
II.  Analysis 
A.  The statute, R.C. 2935.09(D) 
{¶ 6} A private citizen may cause the arrest or prosecution of a person 
charged with committing an offense if the citizen complies with R.C. 
2935.09(D).1  The statute sets forth the procedure for a private citizen who wishes 
to file an affidavit and states that a citizen “may file an affidavit charging the 
offense committed with a reviewing official for the purpose of review to 
determine if a complaint should be filed by the prosecuting attorney.”  A 
“reviewing official” is a judge, a prosecuting attorney, or a magistrate. R.C. 
2935.09 (A). 
{¶ 7} The General Assembly amended R.C. 2935.09 effective June 30, 
2006.  Am.H.B. No. 214, 151 Ohio Laws, Part III, 5973.  Previously, a private 
citizen could file an affidavit charging an offense without the requirement that the 
affidavit be reviewed by a “reviewing official.”   Am.Sub.S.B. No. 73, 128 Ohio 
Laws 97, 98.  After the 2006 amendment, the statute limited a private citizen’s 
ability to cause the arrest or prosecution of another.  The Legislative Service 
                                                 
1 R.C. 2935.09(D) states:  “A private citizen having knowledge of the facts who seeks to cause an 
arrest or prosecution under this section may file an affidavit charging the offense committed with a 
reviewing official for the purpose of review to determine if a complaint should be filed by the 
prosecuting attorney or attorney charged by law with the prosecution of offenses in the court or 
before the magistrate. A private citizen may file an affidavit charging the offense committed with 
the clerk of a court of record before or after the normal business hours of the reviewing officials if 
the clerk's office is open at those times. A clerk who receives an affidavit before or after the 
normal business hours of the reviewing officials shall forward it to a reviewing official when the 
reviewing official's normal business hours resume.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Commission analysis of H.B. 214 states that R.C. 2935.09 was amended with the 
intent that private citizens’ affidavits would be reviewed by judges, magistrates, 
or 
prosecutors. 
 
Final 
Bill 
Analysis, 
2006 
Am.H.B. 
No. 
214, 
www.legislature.state.oh.us/ search.cfm.  The statue allows clerks to accept 
affidavits for filing before or after normal business hours of the reviewing 
officials, but clerks must forward the affidavit to a reviewing official when the 
reviewing official's normal business hours resume.”  R.C. 2935.09(D).  Thus, 
additional processing takes place when a private citizen files an affidavit and 
before arrest or prosecution is instituted. 
{¶ 8} There is no question that Mbodji’s wife was a private citizen who 
went to the clerk’s office and presented an affidavit and a sworn complaint to the 
clerk.  The clerk did not forward the documents to a reviewing official for review, 
but instead immediately issued a warrant for Mbodji’s arrest. Because the parties 
do not dispute that R.C. 2935.09 was not followed in this case, we must determine 
what effect, if any, the procedural error has on Mbodji’s conviction. 
{¶ 9} Mbodji argues that the complaint was not valid and that therefore 
the trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed.  This argument was made for 
the first time in the court of appeals, but Mbodji asserts that it is appropriately 
raised because “the defense of subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived.”  
State v. Sharp, 5th Dist. Nos. 08 CA 2, 3, and 4, 2009-Ohio-1854, ¶ 15.  The state 
responds that the complaint was properly filed because it complied with Crim.R. 3 
and that as a valid complaint, it invoked the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial 
court. 
B.  Meaning of Jurisdiction and Crim.R. 3 
{¶ 10} The term “jurisdiction” refers to the court’s statutory or 
constitutional authority to hear a case.  Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-
Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 11.  The concept encompasses jurisdiction over the 
subject matter of a case as well as jurisdiction over the person.  Id.  Because 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
subject-matter jurisdiction involves a court’s power to hear a case, the issue can 
never be waived or forfeited and may be raised at anytime.  Id.  In contrast, a 
challenge to personal jurisdiction or jurisdiction over the person is waivable by 
the defendant’s voluntary submission at an initial appearance or by entering a plea 
of not guilty.  State v. Holbert (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 113, 118, 67 O.O.2d 111, 
311 N.E.2d 22.  The question before us relates to the trial court’s subject-matter 
jurisdiction. 
{¶ 11} Municipal courts are created by statute, R.C. 1901.01, and their 
subject-matter jurisdiction is also set by statute.  A municipal court in Ohio has 
jurisdiction over misdemeanors occurring within its territorial jurisdiction.  R.C. 
1901.20(A)(1).  Thus, the Hamilton County Municipal Court has subject-matter 
jurisdiction over domestic-violence misdemeanors alleged to have occurred 
within Hamilton County.  R.C. 1901.02(A)(2) and (B). 
{¶ 12} The filing of a complaint invokes the jurisdiction of the municipal 
court.  State v. Miller (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 113, 114, 547 N.E.2d 399, citing 
State v. Craig (Mar. 12, 1986), Hamilton App. No. C-850444, 1986 WL 3096, *2.  
Crim.R. 3 defines what constitutes a valid complaint.  It states, “The complaint is 
a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”  In 
addition, the rule requires that the complaint “state the numerical designation of 
the applicable statute or ordinance” and that it “be made upon oath before any 
person authorized by law to administer oaths.” 
{¶ 13} The complaint filed in this case was valid under Crim.R. 3.  The 
complaint stated that Mbodji “on or about the 16th day of April, 2009, in 
Hamilton County, State of Ohio, did knowingly cause physical harm to Katrina 
McCall, a family member,” thus setting  forth the essential facts of the crime 
charged.  The complaint also specified that those facts showed that Mbodji acted 
“in violation of Section 2919.25 of the Revised Code of Ohio,” thus stating the 
numerical designation of the applicable statute.  The complaint was sworn to and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
signed by the victim, Katrina McCall, and was sworn to before a peace officer 
authorized to administer oaths. In short, the jurisdiction of the trial court was 
properly invoked. 
C.  The Remedy of Crim.R. 12(C) 
{¶ 14} To the extent that Mbodji argues that the trial court did not have 
jurisdiction, he is challenging either the institution of his prosecution or the 
validity of the complaint.  Crim.R. 12(C)2 states: 
{¶ 15} “Prior to trial, any party may raise by motion any defense, 
objection, evidentiary issue, or request that is capable of determination without 
the trial of the general issue.  The following must be raised before trial: 
{¶ 16} “(1) Defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of 
the prosecution; 
{¶ 17} “(2) Defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment, 
information, or complaint (other than failure to show jurisdiction in the court or to 
charge an offense, which objections shall be noticed by the court at any time 
during the pendency of the proceeding).” 
{¶ 18} As stated in Crim.R. 12(H), “[f]ailure by the defendant to raise 
defenses or objections” within the time required “shall constitute waiver of the 
defenses or objections.”  See also State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112, 
117, 5 O.O.3d 98, 364 N.E.2d 1364; State v. Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593, 
598, 734 N.E.2d 345.  In this case, Mbodji waived any defense or objection by 
failing to file a motion before trial. 
{¶ 19} We reject the appellant’s proposition that R.C. 2935.09 creates a 
jurisdictional barrier.  A complaint under Crim.R. 3 invokes the court’s 
jurisdiction, and in this case, the complaint filed against Mbodji was valid under 
                                                 
2 Neither party has developed an argument with respect to whether the applicable subdivision 
would be (C)(1) (defects in the institution of the prosecution) or (C)(2) (defects in the indictment, 
information, or complaint).  We therefore decline to make a determination other than that Crim.R. 
12(C) applies. 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
Crim.R. 3 and invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court.  Any procedural defect in 
the prosecution or the complaint and associated affidavit because of the lack of 
review pursuant to R.C. 2935.09 could have been remedied through a Crim.R. 
12(C) motion. 
{¶ 20} We emphasize, however, that R.C. 2935.09 is intended to govern 
the method by which a private citizen may cause the arrest or prosecution of a 
person.  Clerks of courts must ensure that affidavits pursuant to R.C. 2935.09 are 
forwarded to reviewing officials for the proper review to occur before arrest or 
prosecution as the General Assembly intended. 
III.  Conclusion 
{¶ 21} We hold that a complaint that meets the requirements of Crim.R. 3 
invokes the subject-matter jurisdiction of a trial court.  When a complaint and 
affidavit are signed by a private citizen but are not reviewed by a reviewing 
official before filing pursuant to R.C. 2935.09, the defect is not jurisdictional but 
may be the subject of a Crim.R.12(C) motion before trial. 
{¶ 22} In this case, a Crim.R. 12(C) motion was not filed, and the 
procedural defect was waived by the appellant. 
{¶ 23} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, 
JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 24} Respectfully, I dissent. 
{¶ 25} A complaint charging a person with a crime can only be filed by a 
party authorized by law to invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate judicial 
tribunal charged with hearing criminal complaints.  Accordingly, a party not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
authorized by law to file a criminal complaint cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a 
judicial tribunal to hear a criminal matter.  Because a private citizen is not 
authorized to file a criminal complaint, and because the majority has nonetheless 
concluded that such a filing invokes the jurisdiction of the municipal court to 
entertain the charged offense, I respectfully dissent. 
{¶ 26} On April 16, 2009, Katrina McCall prepared and filed a hand-
written affidavit and signed a document notarized by the deputy clerk titled a 
“complaint” with the clerk of the Hamilton County Municipal Court, alleging that 
Mor Mbodji, her husband, had caused physical harm to her.  The clerk, without 
having forwarded the documents to a reviewing official for filing by a prosecutor, 
issued a warrant to the police chief of Forest Park to have Mbodji brought before 
the Hamilton County Municipal Court to answer the complaint.  The matter 
proceeded to a bench trial, and the court convicted Mbodji and sentenced him to 
eight months of community control. 
{¶ 27} The principal issue in this case is whether the municipal court ever 
obtained jurisdiction to convict Mbodji in this situation where the complaint and 
affidavit were submitted by a private citizen without review by a reviewing 
official and not filed by a prosecuting attorney. 
{¶ 28} R.C.1901.20 provides that a municipal court is authorized to 
consider misdemeanor offenses committed within the territory of the court.  The 
filing of a complaint initiated by a private citizen is governed by a specific statute, 
R.C. 2935.09, which provides a specific procedure crafted by the legislature: “[a] 
private citizen having knowledge of the facts who seeks to cause an arrest or 
prosecution under this section may file an affidavit charging the offense 
committed with a reviewing official for the purpose of review to determine if a 
complaint should be filed by the prosecuting attorney or attorney charged by law 
with the prosecution of offenses in the court or before the magistrate.”  (Emphases 
January Term, 2011 
9 
 
added.) Thus, there is no legislative authority for a private citizen to file a 
complaint seeking to cause an arrest or initiate a criminal prosecution. 
{¶ 29} In R.C. 2935.09, the General Assembly has established a 
procedure for a private citizen to file an affidavit alleging a criminal offense, and 
furthermore requires that it be filed with a reviewing official for purposes of 
review to determine if a complaint should be filed by a prosecuting attorney or an 
attorney authorized to prosecute cases.  R.C. 2935.09 does not, however, permit a 
private citizen to file a criminal complaint with the clerk of a court, thereby 
triggering the issuance of a warrant.  The procedure followed in this case is 
completely at odds with that authorized by law.  The majority acknowledges this 
fact, but nonetheless concludes that a municipal court has jurisdiction over a 
criminal prosecution initiated by a private citizen because a document titled 
“complaint,” which contained the information required by Crim.R. 3, had been 
filed with the clerk of courts.  But Crim.R. 3 envisions that a complaint be filed 
by a prosecuting attorney, not a private citizen. 
{¶ 30} I would acknowledge that a complaint meeting the requirements of 
Crim. R. 3 invokes the jurisdiction of the court, provided that document has been 
filed by a party charged by law with filing such a document. See Franklin v. 
Hall (Apr. 21, 1986), Warren App. No. CA85-06-035, 1986 WL 4912, *1 (“It is 
rudimentary that the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is invoked by the 
filing of a complaint meeting the requirements of Crim.R. 3” (emphasis added).) 
{¶ 31} Here, however, by accepting the proposition that a municipal court 
has jurisdiction to consider a criminal complaint initiated by a private citizen, the 
majority opens the door to a myriad of unintended consequences, such as the 
filing of criminal charges by an inmate against a victim of a crime which resulted 
in the inmate’s incarceration; it invites quarrelling neighbors to escalate 
differences into the criminal realm; and other endless possibilities.  I would 
submit that these kinds of situations prompted the legislature to act to specify a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
manner for the lawful filing of criminal complaints by private citizens.  According 
to the majority’s rationale, any inmate could file a criminal case and cause an 
arrest warrant to be served on a victim, which that victim must defend, and it is 
only after the victim has been arrested and required to appear in court that a 
challenge to the sufficiency of the filing of the complaint could be presented.  
This is the type of legal exercise that the General Assembly sought to prevent by 
requiring a private citizen to file an affidavit with a reviewing official who would 
first assess the matter and, if appropriate, determine whether a prosecuting 
attorney should file a complaint.  These basics of procedural due process 
somehow get lost in the majority’s rush to resolve this case. 
{¶ 32} Here, Katrina McCall, Mbodji’s wife, lacked statutory authority to 
file a criminal complaint against him and cause his arrest.  The statute limited her 
to submitting an affidavit to a reviewing official.  Although she filed an affidavit, 
no reviewing official ever reviewed it, and no prosecutor or other attorney 
authorized to prosecute criminal cases filed the criminal complaint.  Under these 
circumstances, I would assert that the procedure followed by the Hamilton County 
Clerk of Courts is contrary to law, creates great potential for abuse, and, 
importantly, failed to properly invoke the court’s jurisdiction to act and thereby 
denied Mbodji procedural due process.  For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. 
Heenan, for appellee. 
Law Office of the Hamilton County Public Defender, Robert R. Hastings 
Jr., and Susannah Meyer, for appellant. 
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Terrence K. Scott, Assistant 
Public Defender, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Public Defender. 
______________________