[Cite as In re B.A.H., 2011-Ohio-4157.]

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: B. A. H. 

STEPHANIE M. HAYTHE 

 Applicant 

 

 Case No. V2010-50345 

Commissioners: 

Susan G. Sheridan, Presiding 

E. Joel Wesp 

COMMISSIONER PANEL OPINION OF A TWO-

 {¶1}The appeal presently before this panel involves injuries sustained by B.A.H. 

as the result of falling from a tree. After thoughtful consideration, this panel has 

determined that B.A.H. was a victim of criminally injurious conduct. Accordingly, this 

panel reverses the Attorney General’s denial of the applicant’s claim. 

I. Procedural History

{¶2}On July 22, 2009, the applicant, Stephanie Haythe, filed a compensation 

application as the result of injuries sustained by her minor child who fell from a tree 

while he was trying to remove toilet paper that had been placed by vandals. On 

September 22, 2009, the Attorney General issued a finding of fact and decision denying 

the applicant’s claim due to the fact that economic loss had not been incurred. 

 {¶3}On November 5, 2009, the applicant filed a supplemental compensation 

application. On December 18, 2009, the Attorney General issued a finding of fact and 

decision on the basis of the supplemental compensation application. The Attorney 

General determined the applicant was not eligible to receive an award of reparations 

since B.A.H. did not qualify as a victim of criminally injurious conduct. The Attorney 

General reasoned that B.A.H.’s injuries were caused from falling from the tree, not by 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

any conduct that is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or the death penalty as is required 

by R.C. 2743.51(C)(1). 

 {¶4}On January 15, 2010, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. 

On March 16, 2010, the Attorney General rendered a Final Decision finding no reason 

to modify its initial decision. On April 13, 2010, the applicant filed a notice of appeal 

from the March 16, 2010 Final Decision of the Attorney General. The appeal was 

heard by commissioners Sheridan, Kerschner, and Ostry on January 5, 2011 at 11:35 

A.M. 

II. Applicant’s Position

 {¶5}On January 5, 2011, Stephanie Haythe, her son, B.A.H., her attorney, 

Kimberley Wells, and Assistant Attorney General Matthew Karam, representing the 

state of Ohio, attended the hearing and presented testimony and oral argument for the 

panel’s consideration. 

 {¶6}The applicant asserts that the incident involving B.A.H. falling from the tree 

was not an isolated incident; she contends that it was related to a pattern of conduct 

involving bullying, harassment, and threats both to her son and to her property. 

Furthermore, she contends that this is not simply a property crime, but, in fact, criminally 

injurious conduct which should qualify the applicant to receive an award of reparations. 

III. Attorney General’s Position

 {¶7}Conversely, the Attorney General asserts that criminal damaging does not 

qualify as criminally injurious conduct. Furthermore, the Attorney General asserts that 

the injuries did not result from criminal damaging because the injuries were not the 

natural or probable consequence of the property crime itself. 

IV. Witness Testimony and Argument
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

 {¶8}B.A.H. was called to the witness stand to testify. B.A.H. related that the 

harassment began during his freshman year at high school in 2008, in approximately 

November or December of that year. B.A.H. stated his problems commenced when he 

enrolled into Future Farmers of America (F.F.A.). He related that he was viewed as an 

outsider since he had no farming backgrounds and the other members of his class had 

extensive farming experience. He disclosed that when he selected a project for the 

class, the raising of a dairy calf, threats were made against the calf to the point where 

his calf had to be relocated to another location for its protection. B.A.H. chronicled a 

pattern of harassing events, i.e., slamming of the classroom door in his face, the 

mocking of his name and initials, being followed in the hallways at school, harassing 

telephone calls, and feeling like an outsider. Not only did this conduct occur inside the 

school, but also around the school campus. He stated a group of classmates 

expressed their hatred for him, and he felt threatened since they followed and stared at 

him. 

 {¶9}B.A.H. disclosed that he communicated his fears to his parents, school 

administrators, his F.F.A. teacher, school counselors, and a deputy sheriff. In March 

2009, his mother discovered a slaughtered animal in their mailbox. Later, B.A.H. 

learned that the group of students who had been bullying him had placed the animal in 

their mailbox. Finally, B.A.H. detailed the events surrounding the incident of March 14, 

2009, which resulted in his injuries. It was first noticed that his family’s cars had been 

covered in toilet paper and, after they were cleaned B.A.H. left for a martial arts class. 

While at the class B.A.H. received a phone call from a friend that his house had been 

“hit." He and his parents returned to their home to assess the damage; he did not want 

other classmates to see what had been done for fear of further retribution. He felt 

angry and hurt, but knew he had to clean up the mess. 

 {¶10}Accordingly, he pulled as much toilet paper from the tree as he could 

reach. Being unable to remove all the toilet paper from the tree, he then used a ladder. 

Initially, he fell from the ladder, but he continued his efforts to remove the toilet paper 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

from the tree. However, he had to discontinue this endeavor due to a severe 

headache. He had sustained brain trauma as the result of the fall. Police were called 

because the vandals had “keyed” his parents’ cars. 

 {¶11}B.A.H. related he sought treatment at Children’s Hospital. The 

individuals involved were prosecuted for criminal damaging. While other houses in the 

area were vandalized, it was B.A.H.’s opinion that his home had received more 

damage. 

 {¶12}Upon cross-examination, B.A.H. stated that these individuals did not 

verbalize their threats but conveyed their feeling of dislike through acts such as staring 

at him or following him. 

 {¶13}B.A.H. related that the fall occurred because the ladder was placed on 

uneven ground and he fell when he attempted to climb it. B.A.H. conceded that a dead 

animal was found in another mailbox and other classmates’ houses were also 

vandalized on March 14, 2009. 

 {¶14}Upon questioning by panel commissioners, B.A.H. stated he was never 

pushed, shoved, or struck by any of the members of the group, only occasionally 

brushing shoulders with them in the hallway of the school. B.A.H. contended that, as a 

result of his injury, he has trouble concentrating and his grades have fallen. 

Whereupon, the testimony of B.A.H. was concluded. 

 {¶15}The applicant, Stephanie Haythe, was called to testify. Ms. Haythe 

related her experiences with problems her son was experiencing at school, which 

resulted in the relocation of his F.F.A. project to another farm in the area. 

Subsequently, a series of telephone calls prompted her to confront B.A.H. about any 

problems he was encountering at school. B.A.H. informed her concerning the bullying 

he was tolerating. Accordingly, Ms. Haythe contacted her telephone provider, the 

sheriff’s department, and school administrators. The applicant stated she observed her 

son leave school and 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

head toward the parking lot when she saw a group of students follow him. She 

confronted these students and told them to leave her son alone. 

 {¶16}The applicant stated B.A.H. suffered traumatic brain injury as the result of 

the fall, and that it culminated in concentration and short term memory problems, lower 

grades, and social ostracism. Applicant introduced Applicant’s Exhibit 1, copies of 

miscellaneous medical documentation which provide evidence as to the injuries B.A.H. 

suffered as a result of the fall from the ladder. The Attorney General stipulated that the 

records reflect a causal connection between the fall of March 14, 2009 and the injuries 

sustained. The applicant also testified that B.A.H. saw a psychologist as a result of this 

injury and the bullying he experienced. 

 {¶17}The applicant explained her active role in the criminal prosecution of the 

offenders. She also had urged the judge to grant a protection order. However, she 

believes the protection order was not effective since the offenders still attend school 

with her son. She directed B.A.H. to drop the F.F.A. class since she felt the bullying 

would continue if he did not. Currently, B.A.H. continues to suffer academically, even 

with the assistance of tutors. Applicant’s Exhibit 2, a progress report concerning 

B.A.H.’s grades, was submitted. The applicant read from documents of B.A.H.’s 

grades prior to and subsequent to the incident. The documents reflect that before the 

incident his grades were predominately A’s and B’s while after the incident he 

predominately scored C’s and D’s. 

 {¶18}Upon cross-examination, the applicant admitted that she took no 

preemptive actions against the bullies due to a lack of knowledge as to what to do. 

The applicant related that she did not see her son fall. Whereupon, the testimony of 

Stephanie Haythe was concluded. 

 {¶19}In closing, the applicant asserts that B.A.H. was a victim of menacing as 

defined in R.C. 2903.22. The series of acts involving death threats made concerning 

the calf, telephone harassment, being followed around at school, having doors slammed 

in his face, and being made fun of because of his name, caused B.A.H. to suffer mental 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

distress and humiliation. This conduct constitutes menacing by stalking. Furthermore, 

the court granted B.A.H. a protection order, certainly evidence that he was a victim of 

menacing. 

 {¶20}The applicant pointed out that this court has found property crimes 

sufficient to constitute criminally injurious conduct i.e., In re Coss, V91-83524tc 

(9-22-93); and In re Martin, V2007-90145tc (7-5-07), 2007-Ohio-4510. Therefore, she 

asserts that the pattern of unlawful conduct B.A.H. suffered meets the definition of 

criminally injurious conduct contained in R.C. 2743.51(C)(1). Additionally, evidence 

presented by a psychologist demonstrates that B.A.H. suffered mental distress as the 

result of this pattern of conduct. 

 {¶21}The applicant further argued that but for the offenders placing the toilet 

paper in the tree, B.A.H. would not have fallen. It also was foreseeable that B.A.H. 

would have sustained injury in that, based upon the pattern of harassment B.A.H. felt 

compelled to remove the toilet paper from the tree. 

 {¶22}In closing argument, the Attorney General related that B.A.H. has suffered 

as the result of this unfortunate incident. The offenders in this case were convicted of 

criminal damaging in the second degree, an offense that does not require that the 

damaging caused the risk of physical harm. The Attorney General asserts that the 

conduct which B.A.H. experienced does not constitute menacing. However, even if 

menacing is found, there is no causal connection between the menacing and B.A.H.’s 

fall from the tree. Furthermore, the injuries were caused by B.A.H.’s own negligence in 

climbing the tree. 

 {¶23}Based upon questioning by a panel of commissioners, the Attorney 

General conceded based on the totality of events that menacing did occur. 

Accordingly, based on the testimony of B.A.H. and the applicant, B.A.H. reasonably 

believed that there was a substantial threat of personal injury and consequently B.A.H. 

was a victim of criminally injurious conduct. However, the medical and psychological 

expenses incurred were not the result of menacing. 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

V. Controlling Law and Precedent

{¶24}R.C. 2743.51(C)(1) in pertinent part states: 

 “(C) ‘Criminally injurious conduct’ means one of the following: 

“(1) For the purposes of any person described in division (A)(1) of this section, 

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. . 

.” 

 {¶25}R.C. 2903.211(A)(1) (Menacing by stalking) states: 

“(A)(1) No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause 

another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other 

person or cause mental distress to the other person.” 

 {¶26}R.C. 2903.22(A) (Menacing) states: 

“(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will 

cause physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other 

person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family.” 

 R.C. 2909.06(A)&(B) (Criminal damaging or endangering) in pertinent part 

states: 

“(A) No person shall cause, or create a substantial risk of physical harm to any 

property of another without the other person’s consent: 

“(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of criminal damaging or 

endangering, a misdemeanor of the second degree. If a violation of this section 

creates a risk of physical harm to any person, criminal damaging or 

endangering is a misdemeanor of the first degree.” 

 {¶27}On April 6, 2011, the court issued a notice informing the parties that 

Commissioner Randi M. Ostry recused herself pursuant to Rule 1.12(b) of the Rules of 

Professional Conduct. The parties were given the choice of rehearing the matter or 

allowing the selection of a randomly chosen commissioners to review the case file and 

hearing and reaching a decision with the two sitting commissioners.
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

 {¶28}On May 5, 2011, the Attorney General filed a notice opting to have a 

randomly selected third commissioner to review and make a Final Decision in this case, 

in conjunction with the two sitting commissioners. On May 13, 2011, the applicant 

submitted a letter selecting the same option as the Attorney General. E. Joel Wesp 

was randomly selected as the third commissioner. 

 {¶29}The applicant must prove criminally injurious conduct by a preponderance 

of the evidence. In re Rios (1983), 8 Ohio Misc. 2d 4. When crimes against property 

create an unbroken chain of events culminating in an injury to persons those persons 

are victims of criminally injurious conduct. In re Coss, V91-83524tc (9-22-93). An 

applicant who was injured by removal of a manhole cover in violation of R.C. 2909.07 

(criminal mischief) R.C. 2913.02 (theft), and R.C. 4511.17 (tampering with manhole 

covers) was a victim of criminally injurious conduct. In re Martin, V2007-90145tc 

(7-5-07), 2007-Ohio-4510. 

 {¶30}Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (1990) defines preponderance of the 

evidence as: “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence 

which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the 

fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” 

 {¶31}Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (1990) defines burden of proof as: 

“the necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue 

raised between the parties in a cause. The obligation of a party to establish by 

evidence a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the trier of fact or 

the court.” 

 {¶32}The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to their testimony 

are primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 230, 

39 O.O. 2d 366, 227 N.E. 2d 212, paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is free to 

believe or disbelieve, all or any part of each witness’s testimony. State v. Antill (1964), 

176 Ohio St. 61, 26 O.O. 2d 366, 197 N.E. 2d 548. 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

 {¶33}The proximate cause of an injury is the primary or moving cause, or that 

which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening 

cause, produces the injury and without which the accident could not have happened, if 

the injury be one which might be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as a natural 

consequence of the wrongful act. An injury or damage is proximately caused by an 

act, or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case, that the act or 

omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or 

damage; and that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably 

probable consequence of the act or omission. “The last negligent act contributory to an 

injury, without which such injury would not have resulted.” Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth 

Edition (1990). 

 {¶34} “‘Cause’ has been defined as ‘the sum total of the contingencies of every 

description which, being realized, the event invariably follows.” Burns v. Eminger 

(1929), 87 Mont. 397, 408, 276 P. 437, 442. Some predictability, whether based upon 

scientific knowledge or a common-sense appraisal of human behavior, must be an 

ingredient of causation; hence, foreseeability is an inherent element of causation. In re 

Ewing, V84-39931jud (5-4-87), 33 Ohio Misc. 2d 48. 

 {¶35}Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law (1996) defines foreseeable as: “such 

as reasonably can or should be anticipated: such that a person of ordinary prudence 

would expect to occur or exist under the circumstances.” 

VI. Panel’s Determination

 {¶36}This case poses two inter related issues. First, whether B.A.H. was a 

victim of criminally injurious conduct, and second, whether the criminally injurious 

conduct was causally related to the injuries he sustained from the fall from the tree. 

We answer each question in the affirmative. Based upon the history and pattern of 

events starting in November 2008 and culminating with the fall from the tree on March 

13, 2009, B.A.H. was a victim of menacing and menacing by stalking. While we agree 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

that criminal damaging also occurred, B.A.H. suffered as the result of threats made on 

the life to his F.F.A. calf project, he endured a stream of harassing telephone calls, 

intimidating looks and actions by a group of fellow students, a slaughtered animal 

placed in his mailbox, and was bullied on and off school property. The court in In re 

Clapacs (1989), 58 Ohio Misc. 2d 1 and in In re Fife (1989), 59 Ohio Misc. 2d 1 

recognized that, as determined on a case-by-case basis, a psychological injury may be 

considered a personal injury to satisfy the requirement contained in R.C. 2743.51(C)(1). 

In the case at bar, we find B.A.H. was under a mental disability caused by continually 

being a victim of menacing and menacing by stalking at the time the tree was toilet 

papered at his residence. But for this psychological torment caused by his 

victimization, B.A.H. would not have reacted with such urgency when he became aware 

of the toilet paper incident. His overwhelming obsession to remove the toilet paper 

from the tree to prevent further humiliation and embarrassment from any classmates 

observing his plight, caused his lack of caution where he hastily placed the ladder 

against the tree, ultimately causing his injury. 

 {¶37}This court has previously held in the case of In re Coss that when crimes 

against property create an unbroken chain of events which culminate in injury to a 

person, that person is a victim of criminally injurious conduct. In Coss, the applicant, 

an arson investigator, was responding to the scene of a fire when he stepped into a hole 

and sustained injury. A panel of commissioners determined that arson is criminally 

injurious conduct and the applicant sustained his injury after having been dispatched to 

the scene of the fire. Because of this unbroken chain of events Coss qualified as a 

victim of criminally injurious conduct. 

 {¶38}The case at bar presents a much more compelling example of the causal 

connection between a crime and an injury. B.A.H. was a victim of continuing menacing 

and menacing by stalking which motivated him to climb the tree and resulted in his 

injury. 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

 {¶39}Finally, the medical documentation presented at the hearing proves that 

B.A.H. suffered personal injury as a result of falling from the tree. Accordingly, we find 

the applicant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that B.A.H. was a 

victim of criminally injurious conduct and he should be compensated for his injuries. 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

 {¶40}Therefore, the Attorney General’s March 16, 2010 Final Decision is 

reversed. 

 _______________________________________ 

 SUSAN G. SHERIDAN 

 Presiding Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 E. JOEL WESP 

 Commissioner
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

Karl C. Kerschner, Commissioner, Dissenting Opinion: 

 {¶41}I respectfully dissent. Based upon the evidence contained in the case file 

and presented at the hearing, the injuries B.A.H. sustained as the result of his fall from 

the tree were not the result of criminally injurious conduct. 

 {¶42}While the majority finds an unbroken chain of criminal events led to the 

injuries sustained by B.A.H. as the result of his falling from the tree, the record does not 

support this conclusion. B.A.H.’s trouble with his fellow students started, by his own 

admission, in November or December 2008. While enrolled in a F.F.A. class, his 

project (a calf) was threatened, resulting in it having to be relocated for its well being. 

Throughout the remainder of the school year he experienced unwelcome stares, 

ostracization, and disparaging verbal remarks made both in person and over the 

telephone. However, based upon questioning by the commissioners, B.A.H. conceded 

he was never threatened with physical injury and the only physical contact was 

occasional shoulder brushes in the hallway. While the Attorney General conceded that 

this conduct, in conjunction with a dead animal placed in B.A.H.’s residential mailbox, 

constituted criminally injurious conduct, the record again does not support this 

conclusion. 

 {¶43}It is certainly unpleasant to be excluded and isolated from one’s 

classmates; even name calling and insulting humor should have no place in the 

classroom or the hallways; however, such conduct is not criminal in nature. The daily 

drama of high school relationships may be emotionally draining and provide an 

unwarranted distraction from the goals of an institution dedicated to learning. However, 

it does not equate to the criminal activity defined under R.C. 2903.211(A)(1), menacing 

by stalking, or R.C. 2903.22(A), menacing. 

 {¶44}There can be no question with respect to the incident of March 14, 2009, 

however, that criminal activity occurred. The Clark County Sheriff’s Incident Report 

lists the following alleged criminal violations: R.C. 2909.07(A)(1), criminal mischief; R.C. 

2913.02, theft; 2923.03(A)(4), complicity; and R.C. 2909.06(A)(1), criminal damaging or 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

endangering. After full review of the charges by the investigative authority and careful 

review by the juvenile court prosecutor, each of the five juvenile offenders was found 

delinquent for engaging in complicity, criminal damaging or endangering, or criminal 

mischief. All of the delinquents were ordered to pay B.A.H. in equal amounts of 

$325.12. It should be noted that the criminal incident was a crime against property and 

that the applicant was not physically present when the event occurred. 

 {¶45}While the majority asserts an unbroken chain of events, which they 

characterized as menacing and menacing by stalking, started with the confrontations at 

the school in November and December 2008 and culminated with the March 14, 2009 

property damage incident, there is no clear cut strand linking these events together. 

Furthermore, the degree of emotional distress encountered by B.A.H. does not rise to 

the level of personal injury as contemplated by R.C. 2743.51(C)(1). However, if for 

argument’s sake, it was conceded that B.A.H. was a victim of criminally injurious 

conduct based on the events leading up to the property damage incident of March 14, 

2009, there is still no causal link between B.A.H.’s injuries and the acts of vandalism 

which were committed. 

 {¶46}The juvenile offenders who placed toilet paper in the trees surrounding 

B.A.H.’s home did not pose a substantial threat of personal injury or death, as is 

required pursuant to R.C. 2743.51(C)(1). Furthermore, this act of vandalism or criminal 

damaging was not the proximate cause of the injuries B.A.H. sustained. B.A.H. was 

injured well after the event at issue when he placed a ladder on uneven ground covered 

with underbrush and subsequently fell. B.A.H.’s own actions, temporally removed from 

the vandalism incident, were the cause of his injury. 

 {¶47}The majority relies on the holding in In re Coss to support their position. 

However, it should be noted that Coss was a two-to-one panel decision. The dissent 

refused to agree with the majority since Coss was not injured as the result of direct 

contact with the arson fire. Consequently, the dissent opined that the majority 

stretched the parameters of the reparations fund to become “a form of hazard 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

insurance.” Moreover, Coss was injured by an obscured hazard, stepping off the fire 

truck and into a hole, whereas B.A.H. had the ability to assess his situation and 

voluntarily choose a course of action to remedy it at a point in time which, again, 

occurred well after the vandalism. 

 {¶48}Judicial decisions in In re May, V94-43540tc (2-29-96) affirmed jud 

(5-10-96) and In re Kallay (1997), 91 Ohio Misc. 3d 148, found that police officers who 

either slipped and fell while trying to execute a search warrant or stepped into a hole 

while attempting to serve a warrant for felony rape, respectively, were not victims of 

criminally injurious conduct. These decisions properly interpret the law and should be 

relied on rather than the holding in Coss.

 {¶49}In sum, B.A.H. has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he 

was a victim of criminally injurious conduct. Additionally, the act of toilet papering a 

tree does not constitute conduct which posed a “substantial threat of personal injury or 

death.” Finally, B.A.H.’s injuries were proximately caused by his own careless attempts 

to remove the toilet paper from the tree. Accordingly, the Final Decision of the Attorney 

General should be affirmed. 

 _______________________________________ 

 KARL C. KERSCHNER 

 Commissioner 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

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: B. A. H. 

STEPHANIE M. HAYTHE 

 Applicant 

 

 Case No. V2010-50345 

Commissioners: 

Susan G. Sheridan, Presiding 

Randi M. Ostry 

COMMISSIONER PANEL ORDER OF A TWO-

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 

 {¶50}1) Applicant’s Exhibits 1 and 2 are admitted into evidence; 

 {¶51}2) The March 16, 2010 decision of the Attorney General is REVERSED 

and judgment is rendered in favor of the applicant; 

 {¶52}3) This claim is remanded to the Attorney General for total economic loss 

calculation and decision; 

 {¶53}4) This order is entered without prejudice to the applicant’s right to file a 

supplemental compensation application, within five years of this order, pursuant to R.C. 

2743.68; 
Case No. V2010-50345 Page 1

 {¶54}5) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund. 

 _______________________________________ 

 SUSAN G. SHERIDAN 

 Presiding Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 E. JOEL WESP 

 Commissioner

ID #I:\VICTIMS\2010\50345\3-14-11 panel decision.wpd\DRB-tad 

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

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

Filed 7-13-11 

Jr. Vol. 2279, Pgs. 100-101 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 8-19-11