[Cite as In re Brown, 2011-Ohio-5294.]

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: JAY K. BROWN 

JAY K. BROWN 

 Applicant 

 

 Case No. V2010-50752 

Commissioners: 

Karl C. Kerschner, Presiding 

Lloyd Pierre-Louis 

Susan G. Sheridan 

ORDER OF A THREE-COMMISSIONER PANEL

 {¶1}On January 25, 2010, the applicant filed a compensation application 

alleging he was a victim of crime on January 27, 2008. On March 26, 2010, the 

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

since he failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was a victim of 

criminally injurious conduct. On April 27, 2010, the applicant submitted a request for 

reconsideration. On June 17, 2010, the Attorney General rendered a Final Decision 

finding no reason to modify its initial decision. On July 19, 2010, the applicant filed a 

notice of appeal from the Attorney General’s June 17, 2010 Final Decision. Hence, a 

hearing was held before this panel of commissioners on December 1, 2010 at 10:25 

A.M. 

 {¶2}The applicant appeared at the hearing, while his attorney, Joseph 

Benavidez, appeared via telephone. The state of Ohio was represented by Assistant 

Attorney General Megan Hanke. 
Case No. V2010-50752 - 2 - ORDER

 {¶3}The applicant made a brief statement for the court’s consideration. The 

applicant requested that the panel review the statements that he made which appear in 

the claim file. The applicant asserts that his brother attempted to injure him as a result 

of a dispute over 
Case No. V2010-50752 - 3 - ORDER

their mother’s estate. The applicant further stated that the file contains medical bills he 

incurred as the result of two separate automobile accidents allegedly caused by his 

brother. No additional documentation or testimony was presented beyond what is 

currently contained in the case file. 

 {¶4}The Attorney General stated that the only issue to be addressed is whether 

the applicant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that he was a victim 

of criminally injurious conduct. The Attorney General stated that the applicant’s 

statements have not been substantiated by law enforcement, and that the applicant was 

charged with failure to control as a result of a car crash which the applicant alleges was 

criminally injurious conduct. Based on the lack of evidence presented by the applicant, 

the Attorney General urged that the Final Decision be affirmed. Whereupon, the 

hearing was concluded. 

 {¶5}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, 

or would be so punishable but for the fact that the person engaging in the 

conduct lacked capacity to commit the crime under the laws of this state.” 

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

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

 {¶7}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.” 
Case No. V2010-50752 - 4 - ORDER

 {¶8}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.” 

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

the statements of the parties at the hearing, we find that the applicant has failed to 

prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was a victim of criminally injurious 

conduct as defined by R.C. 2743.51(C)(1). Supposition and speculation do not satisfy 

the applicant’s burden of proof. Therefore, the June 17, 2010 decision of the Attorney 

General is affirmed. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 

 {¶10}1) The June 17, 2010 decision of the Attorney General is AFFIRMED; 

 {¶11}2) This claim is DENIED and judgment is rendered for the state of Ohio; 
Case No. V2010-50752 - 5 - ORDER

 {¶12}3) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund.

 _______________________________________ 

 KARL C. KERSCHNER 

 Presiding Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 LLOYD PIERRE-LOUIS 

 Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 SUSAN G. SHERIDAN 

 Commissioner 

ID #I:\Victim Decisions to SC Reporter\Panel Decisions\2011\January 2011\V2010-50752 Brown.wpd\DRB-tad 

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

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

Filed 1-27-11 

Jr. Vol. 2277, Pgs. 189-192 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 10-13-11