[Cite as In re Glass, 2010-Ohio-6701.]

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. V2010-50183 

Commissioners: 

Gregory P. Barwell, Presiding 

Elizabeth Luper Schuster 

Susan G. Sheridan 

COMMISSIONER PANEL ORDER OF A THREE-

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

allegedly suffering an ongoing course of criminal conduct involving harassment, 

invasion of privacy, and illegal entry into her apartment. On December 15, 2009, the 

Attorney General issued a finding of fact and decision denying the applicant’s claim 

since she failed to file a police report concerning any of these alleged incidents within 

seventy-two hours of their occurrence, or, in fact, ever file a police report concerning 

these incidents. On December 21, 2009, the applicant submitted a request for 

reconsideration. On February 18, 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 February 26, 

2010, the applicant filed a notice of appeal from the February 18, 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. V2010-50183 - 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 incident to law 

enforcement as is required by R.C. 2743.60(A), or that she incurred economic loss as 
Case No. V2010-50183 - 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 18, 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 18, 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. V2010-50183 - 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\50183\V2010-50183.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. 12-15 

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