[Cite as In re Glass, 2010-Ohio-6703.]

Court of Claims of Ohio 

Victims of Crime Division

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Fourth Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9860 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

IN RE: CHARLENE M. GLASS 

CHARLENE M. GLASS 

 Applicant 

 

 Case No. V2010-50248 

Commissioners: 

Gregory P. Barwell, Presiding 

Elizabeth Luper Schuster 

Susan G. Sheridan 

COMMISSIONER PANEL ORDER OF A THREE-

 {¶1}On September 14, 2009, the applicant filed a compensation application 

asserting that on a daily ongoing basis she was harassed and threatened by a number 

of offenders. On December 15, 2009, the Attorney General issued a finding of fact and 

decision denying the applicant’s claim based on her failure to comply with R.C. 

2743.60(A), report the criminal incidents to police within seventy-two hours of their 

occurrence. Furthermore, no evidence could be found that the incidents were ever 

reported to police. On December 21, 2009, the applicant submitted a request for 

reconsideration. On February 24, 2010, the Attorney General rendered a Final 

Decision reiterating its position concerning the lack of reporting the alleged incidents to 

police, and also asserting that the applicant has failed to prove, by a preponderance of 

the evidence, that she was a victim of criminally injurious conduct. On March 2, 2010, 

the applicant filed a notice of appeal from the February 24, 2010 Final Decision of the 

Attorney General. Hence, a hearing was held before this panel of commissioners on 

May 19, 2010 at 10:20 A.M. 
Case No. V2010-50248 - 2 - ORDER

 {¶2}On May 3, 2010, the Attorney General filed a motion for leave to file a brief 

after the order date. 

 {¶3}For hearing purposes only claim numbers V2010-50183, V2010-50191, 

V2010-50248, V2010-50256, and V2010-50264 were heard concurrently. The 

applicant did not appear at the hearing, while Assistant Attorney General Jason Fuller 

appeared on behalf of the state of Ohio. The Attorney General made a brief statement 

for the panel’s consideration. With respect to claims V2010-50183, V2010-50191, 

V2010-50248, and V2010-50256, the Attorney General stated that the issues were 

failure to prove the occurrence of criminally injurious conduct, failure to timely or ever 

report the alleged incidents, failure to prove the applicant incurred economic loss and 

res judicata. The Attorney General related the applicant has filed 76 compensation 

applications and 15 appeals to the panel of commissioners. The Attorney General 

asserts all subsequent applications emanate from claim number V2005-80321, a rape 

incident. However, the panel denied that claim. While the Attorney General concedes 

that the applicant has alleged different criminal incidents involving different offenders, it 

is the Attorney General’s contention that all subsequent applications relate to the rape 

incident. Finally, the applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence 

that she was a victim of crime, that she reported the incidents in a timely manner or at 

all, or that she suffered any economic loss. The Attorney General cites In re Krohn

(1989), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 473 as authority to deny future claims based on this incident 

pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. Whereupon, the hearing was concluded. 

 {¶4}From review of the file and with full and careful consideration given to the 

statement of the Attorney General, we find the applicant has failed to prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that she was a victim of criminally injurious conduct as 

defined by R.C. 2743.51(C), that she reported the alleged criminal incidents to law 

enforcement as is required by R.C. 2743.60(A), or that she incurred economic loss as 
Case No. V2010-50248 - 3 - ORDER

defined by R.C. 2743.51(E). However, we cannot find that the doctrine of res judicata 

is applicable in this case. In In re Krohn, the incident (an automobile collision) the 

expenses, and the offender were all the same in both claims filed. The single 

commissioner in that case determined due to every element of the two claims being 

identical the doctrine of res judicata should apply. However, in the case at bar a 

comparison of claims V2010-50183, V2010-50191, V2010-50248, and V2010-50256 

establishes that they involve different alleged offenders and different criminal violations 

asserted. Therefore, we find res judicata should not be applied. 

 {¶5}Accordingly, the Attorney General’s decision of February 24, 2010 shall be 

affirmed on the basis of failure to prove criminally injurious conduct and failure to timely 

report the incidents to police. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 

 {¶6}1) The Attorney General’s motion of May 3, 2010 is GRANTED; 

 {¶7}2) The February 24, 2010 decision of the Attorney General is AFFIRMED; 

 {¶8}3) This claim is DENIED and judgment is rendered for the state of Ohio; 
Case No. V2010-50248 - 4 - ORDER

 {¶9}4) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund.

 _______________________________________ 

 GREGORY P. BARWELL 

 Presiding Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 ELIZABETH LUPER SCHUSTER 

 Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 SUSAN G. SHERIDAN 

 Commissioner 

ID #I:\VICTIMS\2010\50248\V2010-50248.wpd\DRB-tad 

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

sent by regular mail to Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney and to: 

Filed 7-16-10 

Jr. Vol. 2276, Pgs. 1-4 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 8-5-11