[Cite as In re Pratt, 2023-Ohio-3487.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} Richard S. Pratt, Jr. (Pratt) died of a drug overdose on May 23, 2020 from 

methamphetamine that was laced with fentanyl. Rosemary Pratt and Nancy Milota 

(Applicants) filed a crime victims compensation application asserting that Pratt was a 

victim of involuntary manslaughter, which was committed by the drug dealer when he sold 

methamphetamine laced with fentanyl to Pratt. On January 3, 2023, the Attorney General 

rendered a Final Decision denying Applicants’ claim because voluntary ingestion of a 

lethal dose of drugs does not constitute criminally injurious conduct. Applicants filed an 

appeal with this Court on February 14, 2023.

{¶2} A hearing was held before a magistrate on June 1, 2023. The Magistrate 

issued her Decision on June 28, 2023, in which she recommended that the Final Decision 

of the Attorney General be affirmed. Applicants filed an Objection to the Magistrate’s 

Decision, which is now before the Court for consideration.

Standard of Review

{¶3} “A party may file written objections to a magistrate’s decision within fourteen 

days of the filing of the decision * * *.” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i). Objections “shall be specific 

and state with particularity all grounds for objection.” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii).

{¶4} The court “shall undertake an independent review as to the objected matters 

to ascertain that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and 

appropriately applied the law.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). In reviewing the objections, the court 

does not act as an appellate court but rather conducts “a de novo review of the facts and 

conclusions in the magistrate’s decision.” Ramsey v. Ramsey, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 

IN RE: RICHARD S. PRATT

ROSEMARY PRATT

NANCY MILOTA

 Applicants

Case No. 2023-00203VI

Judge Lisa L. Sadler

ORDER
Case No. 2023-00203VI - 2 - DECISION

13AP-840, 2014-Ohio-1921, ¶ 16-17. “Whether or not objections are timely filed, a court 

may adopt or reject a magistrate’s decision in whole or in part, with or without 

modification.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(b).

Factual Background and Procedural History

{¶5} On May 23, 2020, Pratt was found dead in his apartment. The officers who 

responded to the call found some drug paraphernalia, a white powder, and a pink powder. 

The medical examiner concluded that Pratt’s death was accidental and caused by 

combined ethanol, fentanyl, and methamphetamine intoxication. (Record, p. 76.)

{¶6} A hearing was held before a magistrate on June 1, 2023. Applicant 

Rosemary Pratt, Pratt’s mother, testified to the following: Pratt did not voluntarily ingest 

a lethal dose of fentanyl. Instead, he was a victim of a repeat drug dealer who sold him 

increasingly strong doses of drugs. The drug dealer sought to increase his personal profit 

by lacing his drugs with fentanyl. According to Rosemary, the fact that Pratt died with so 

little fentanyl in his system suggests that he had not previously used fentanyl, i.e., he had 

not developed a tolerance for it. The police recovered several messages from Pratt’s 

phone discussing the purchase of drugs, none of which mention fentanyl. (Applicants’ 

Exh. 3; Record, p. 60-74.) Applicant Nancy Milota, Pratt’s grandmother, did not testify.

{¶7} On May 17, 2023, after the compensation application was filed, Gregory 

Miller, Jr. (Miller) pleaded “guilty to involuntary manslaughter R.C. 2903.04 a [felony of 

the first degree] as charged in count 1 of the Indictment.” (Capitalization deleted.) 

(Applicants’ Exh. 1.) Count 1 of the Indictment charges that Miller and Samantha Liebhart 

“did cause the death of Richard Pratt Jr. and such death was the proximate result of 

Gregory Miller and/or Samantha Liebhart committing or attempting to commit the felony 

offense of Corrupting Another with Drugs, Revised Code Section 2925.02.” (Applicants’ 

Exh. 2.)

{¶8} In her June 28, 2023 Decision, the Magistrate recommended that the 

Attorney General’s denial of the Applicants’ crime victims compensation application be 

upheld because the voluntary ingestion of drugs does not constitute criminally injurious 

conduct. Applicants filed an Objection to the Magistrate’s Decision on July 10, 2023. 

Applicants’ Objection does not contain a certificate of service in accordance with Civ.R. 

5(B)(4). However, there is a notation at the bottom indicating that copies were sent to the 
Case No. 2023-00203VI - 3 - DECISION

Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General Melissa Montgomery. The Court 

concludes that Applicants have substantially complied with the service requirement. The 

Attorney General did not file a response.

Applicants’ Objection

{¶9} Applicants argue that criminally injurious conduct is defined as “any conduct 

that occurs or is attempted in the state; poses a substantial threat or (sic) personal injury 

or death; and is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death or would be punishable but 

for the fact that the person engaging in the conduct lacked capacity to commit the crime 

under the laws of this state.” (Emphasis sic.) (Objection, p. 1.) And on June 28, 2023, 

Gregory Miller—the drug dealer—was sentenced to prison for seven years for the 

involuntary manslaughter of Richard Pratt, Jr. Therefore, Applicants assert, Pratt was a 

victim of criminally injurious conduct.

{¶10} The Court understands Applicants’ logic and sympathizes with their loss. 

However, although Miller was convicted of a crime related to Pratt’s death, not every 

crime amounts to criminally injurious conduct for purposes of the Victim’s of Crime 

Compensation Act. Even though they use much of the same language—such as 

“victim”—the criminal law and the law governing crime victims compensation are different 

statutory schemes. It is thus possible for Pratt to be a victim of crime for purposes of 

criminal law but not a victim of criminally injurious conduct for purposes of determining 

whether Applicants are entitled to crime victim compensation.

{¶11} R.C. 2743.51(C)(1) defines criminally injurious conduct, in pertinent part, as 

“any conduct that occurs or is attempted in this state; poses a substantial threat of 

personal injury or death; and is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death, or would be 

so punishable but for the fact that the person engaging in this conduct lacked capacity to 

commit the crime under the laws of this state.” This Court has consistently held that, in 

the absence of foul play, a decedent’s voluntary ingestion of a drug is not criminally 

injurious conduct, even if it results in their death. In re Stanley, Ct. of Cl. No. 
Case No. 2023-00203VI - 4 - DECISION

V2007-90340tc, 2007-Ohio-4700, aff’d jud (Dec. 12, 2007)1; In re Camp, Ct. of C. No. 

2018-01054VI, 2018-Ohio-5481, aff’d jud (Dec. 7, 2018).

{¶12} In this case, Miller’s only conduct towards Pratt was selling him the drugs. 

The drug deal itself did not pose a substantial threat of personal injury or death; Pratt was 

not harmed during the drug deal. Instead, Pratt died when he consumed the drugs, 

presumably outside of Miller’s presence. The medical examiner’s report indicates that 

Pratt took the drugs in his own home and died from an accidental overdose of ethanol, 

fentanyl, and methamphetamine. No evidence was presented to show that Pratt did not 

take the drugs voluntarily. Accordingly, the Court finds that Pratt took the drugs 

voluntarily.

{¶13} The next question is whether there was foul play involved. In Howard, the 

offender encouraged his minor victim to drink excessively so that he could then sexually 

assault him. In re Howard, Ct. of Cl. No. 2019-00676VI (Sept. 1, 2021) aff’d jud (Oct. 13, 

2021). The victim died from alcohol poisoning before the offender could sexually assault 

him, and the offender was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. This Court concluded 

that the minor was a victim of criminally injurious conduct because there was both a 

conviction and foul play. The foul play was that the offender encouraged the minor “by 

trick or coercion to drink to excess so he could sexually abuse them.” Id. at 7.

{¶14} In this case, however, there is no evidence that someone coerced or tricked 

Pratt into consuming the drugs that he purchased. Applicants argued during the hearing 

that Pratt did not know that the drug dealer had laced the methamphetamine with fentanyl, 

although they did not prove Pratt’s lack of knowledge by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Nevertheless, even if it is true that he thought he was only purchasing and consuming 

methamphetamine, because methamphetamine is an illegal drug, there is no guarantee 

as to its quality or purity. Illegal drug users assume a risk every time they take illegal 

1 Although the Attorney General asserted during the hearing and the Magistrate’s Decision seems to 

indicate that Stanley involved a conviction related to the death of the victim, the Court notes that it appears 

that the panel of commissioners in Stanley were not presented with evidence of a conviction: “In this case, 

even though various charges were filed against Julie Miller in connection with the decedent’s death, * * 

*.” Stanley at ¶ 5.
Case No. 2023-00203VI - 5 - DECISION

drugs that the drugs may not be what they intended to purchase and that they could be 

harmed by ingesting such substances. Therefore, there was no foul play.

{¶15} Because there was no foul play and Pratt consumed the drugs voluntarily, 

his death was not the result of criminally injurious conduct. Stanley, 2007-Ohio-4700; 

Camp, 2018-Ohio-5481. Therefore, Applicants are not eligible for an award of 

compensation. Accordingly, Applicants’ Objection shall be overruled.

Conclusion

{¶16} For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the Magistrate 

properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law. Therefore, the 

Court adopts the Magistrate’s Decision and recommendation as its own.

{¶17} IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

{¶18} The June 28, 2023 Decision of the Magistrate is ADOPTED;

{¶19} This claim is DENIED and judgment entered for state of Ohio;

{¶20} Costs assumed by the reparations fund.

LISA L. SADLER

Judge

A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent 

by regular mail to:

Filed 09/07/2023

Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/23