Court Opinion

ID: 9883003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:23:06.817783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:20.540220
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re Ford, 2023-Ohio-3338.]

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 IN RE: DANIELLE FORD                             Case No. 2022-00200VI

 DANIELLE FORD                                    Magistrate Daniel R. Borchert

                 Applicant                        DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE

          {¶1}     On August 2, 2021, applicant, Danielle Ford, filed a compensation
application seeking an award for medical expenses, counseling expenses, and mileage
stemming from an unwanted sexual encounter on June 20, 2009.
          {¶2}     On November 28, 2021, the Attorney General (“AG”) issued a finding of fact
and decision denying applicant’s claim because it was unable to find that applicant was
the victim of criminally injurious conduct.            Applicant submitted a request for
reconsideration to the AG on December 13, 2021. The request asserted that the wrong
police report was considered, and the wrong detective was consulted; applicant provided
the correct case number and the detective’s contact information.
          {¶3}     On February 9, 2022, the AG rendered a final decision finding no reason to
modify the original decision. On March 9, 2022, applicant filed notice of appeal from the
AG’s final decision.
          {¶4}     The AG transmitted its case file for applicant’s claim on March 23, 2022.
The file contains two police reports concerning the incident applicant alleged occurred in
June of 2009. The police report dated December 12, 2011, case number 11204271CPD,
states:
          “12/11/11 Victim walked into police HQ to report a sexual assault. Victim stated
          that in June of 2009 she was at a party drinking. Victim stated that the suspect
          talked [victim] into going into a public room ( possibly a laundry room ), Once in the
          room suspect talked the victim into having sex with [him]. Victim stated that the
          suspect didn’t force her but she didn’t want to have sex. Victim stated that the
          suspect performed vaginal intercourse on her without wearing a condom. Victim
Case No. 2022-00200VI                       -2-                                 DECISION

       stated that she didn’t wish to prosecute the suspect she only wanted a report filed
       on the incident.”
       {¶5}   Another police report dated April 2-4, 2019, case number 193004577, was
also in the AG’s file. This police report states that a detective with the Columbus Division
of Police sat down with applicant and the alleged suspect and that the suspect stated that
he remembered applicant but that he never engaged in sexual relations with her, forced
or consensual.
       {¶6}   Applicant submitted a brief prior to the hearing. Applicant asserted that the
AG made the decision that applicant was not a victim based on the fact that no criminal
charges were brought as a result of the alleged assault.
       {¶7}   Hence, a hearing was held before this magistrate on May 11, 2023, at 10:00
a.m.
       {¶8}   Applicant, Danielle Ford, did not appear at the hearing despite being notified
and being emailed the appropriate link to join the hearing virtually. The Court waited ten
minutes after the scheduled time of the hearing to allow applicant to participate. However,
applicant never joined the hearing. The state of Ohio was represented by Assistant
Attorney General Lauren Angell.
       {¶9}   The AG argued that the facts of this case, even taking what applicant stated
as true, do not establish that criminally injurious conduct occurred. The AG stated that
there was not enough evidence in the police reports or applicant’s statements in the filings
to prove that applicant was a victim of criminally injurious conduct. The AG cited In re
Meyers, V2016-00906 (5-5-17) aff’d jud (5-31-17). In re Johnson, V2014-00772jud (6-
25-15) and In re Moore, V2014-00699jud (1-29-15), as cases that establish that if there
are merely statements made by the applicant and no other evidence, that is not enough
to prove that the applicant was the victim of criminally injurious conduct. Therefore, the
AG requested that the Final Decision of February 9, 2022, be affirmed.
       {¶10} With regard to the criminally injurious conduct, the applicant has the burden
of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that she was a victim of criminally
injurious conduct. In re Rios, 8 Ohio Misc.2d 4, 455 N.E.2d 1374 (Ct. of Cl. 1983). The
definition of “criminally injurious conduct” under R.C. 2743.51(C)(1) states that “[f]or the
purposes of any person described in division (A)(1) of this section, any conduct that
Case No. 2022-00200VI                         -3-                                   DECISION

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. * * *”
       {¶11} The applicant must produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis
for sustaining her claim. If the evidence furnishes a basis for only a guess, among
different possibilities, as to any essential issue in the case, she fails to sustain the burden
as to such issue. In re Staten, V2011-60051tc (5-27-11), 2011-Ohio-4321, citing Landon
v. Lee Motors, Inc. 161 Ohio St. 82, 118 N.E.2d 147 (1964). “[T]he uncorroborated
statement of the applicant does not constitute sufficient proof, by a preponderance of the
evidence, to establish the criminally injurious conduct occurred.” In re Henderson, V2011-
60930jud (January 10, 2012), 2012-Ohio-6364 citing In re Warren, V2008-30014tc (9-5-
08) and In re Minadeo, V79-3435jud (10-31-80). See also In re Meyers, V2016-00906jud
(5-31-17), In re Johnson, V2014-00772jud (6-25-15) and In re Moore, V2014-00699jud
(1-29-15).
       {¶12} Here, applicant failed to produce evidence outside of her uncorroborated
statements to the police. Therefore, she was unable to prove that she was a victim of
criminally injurious conduct.
       {¶13} Based upon the evidence, it is this magistrate’s decision that the Attorney
General’s denial of applicant’s claim was reasonable. Therefore, it is recommended that
the Attorney General’s decision of February 9, 2022, be affirmed.
       {¶14} A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision within 14
days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during
that 14-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i).           If any party timely files
objections, any other party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first
objections are filed. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of
any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as finding
of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and
specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the filing of
the decision, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).
Case No. 2022-00200VI                    -4-                               DECISION

                                        DANIEL R. BORCHERT
                                        Magistrate

      A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent
by regular mail to:

Filed 5/17/23
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/23
Case No. 2022-00200VI                        -5-                                 DECISION

                         IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 IN RE: DANIELLE FORD                          Case No. 2022-00200VI

 DANIELLE FORD                                 Judge Lisa L. Sadler

       Applicant                               ORDER

       {¶15} On May 11, 2023, a hearing was held in this matter before a Magistrate of
this court. On May 17, 2023, the Magistrate issued a Decision wherein he found that
applicant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was a victim of
criminally injurious conduct. Accordingly, the Magistrate recommended the Attorney
General’s Final Decision be affirmed.
       {¶16} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to a
magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the
court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R.
53(D)(4)(e)(i).” No objections were filed.
       {¶17} Upon review of the claim file, and the Magistrate’s Decision, it is the Court’s
finding that the Magistrate was correct in his analysis of the issues and application of the
law. Accordingly, this court adopts the Magistrate’s Decision and recommendation as its
own.
       {¶18} IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
       {¶19} The May 17, 2023 Decision of the Magistrate is ADOPTED;
       {¶20} This claim is DENIED and judgment entered for state of Ohio;
       {¶21} 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 Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney and to:
Case No. 2022-00200VI           -6-   DECISION

Filed 6/7/23
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/23