Court Opinion

ID: 9882983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:22:49.396891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:20.537039
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re Rowe, 2023-Ohio-3349.]

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 IN RE: JENNY ROWE                                      Case No. 2023-00257VI

 JENNY ROWE                                             Magistrate Holly True Shaver

         Applicant                                      DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE

        {¶1}    On November 8, 2022, Jenny Rowe, formally known as Jeannette Koehler,
(“applicant”), filed a compensation application for replacement services, lost wages, crime
scene clean up, and items held as evidence stemming from an incident involving law
enforcement officers at her residence on August 4, 2021.1 In her application, applicant
stated that “[t]his entire incident is a direct result of my neighbor swatting me beginning
March 26, 2021, and resulted in over $100,000 damages to my new home, my husband
murdered, my jeep [sic] window smashed out and severe ptsd [sic] and depression that
is ongoing and making employment and everyday living extremely difficult.”
        {¶2}    The Attorney General (“AG”) rendered a finding of fact and decision on
December 8, 2022, denying applicant’s claim because the AG found no evidence that the
crime was ever reported to law enforcement pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(A), and that there
was no criminally injurious conduct as defined in R.C. 2743.51(C) because the law
enforcement officers involved in the events referred to in the application were found to
have acted within their lawful capacity and authority. Further, the AG stated in its findings
that the only report of an incident that occurred at applicant’s residence was on July 4,
2021, and applicant was not present because she was incarcerated.
        {¶3}    On January 7, 2023, applicant filed a request for reconsideration. In her
request applicant stated that she was at her residence on July 4, 2021. Applicant stated

1 Although applicant’s application lists the date of the incident as August 4, 2022, the evidence in the claim

file shows that it occurred on August 4, 2021.
Case No. 2023-00257VI                              -2-                                        DECISION

that the AG did not fully investigate her claim. Applicant asserted that law enforcement
refused to investigate her neighbor for felony swatting that resulted in the death of her
husband, Sean Rowe.2             Applicant admitted that she was not at her residence on
August 4, 2021, when her husband was killed and her home was invaded. Applicant
stated that the law enforcement officers damaged her home by knocking the foundation
support beam out of place. Finally, applicant stated that she was kidnapped by law
enforcement shortly before August 4, 2021, which should be considered criminally
injurious conduct.
        {¶4}    On March 7, 2023, the AG rendered its final decision which did not modify
its finding of fact and decision. On April 4, 2023, applicant filed a notice of appeal.
Applicant reasserted her claims and contended that the damage to her home that
occurred on August 4, 2021, was the direct result of the initial July 4, 2021, incident when
law enforcement officers were present at her residence.
        {¶5}    A hearing was held before this magistrate on June 29, 2023, at 11:00 a.m.
Applicant and Assistant Attorney General (“AAG”) Candice Suffren attended the hearing.
        {¶6}    Applicant testified that there were three separate incidents involving the
Richland County Sheriff which led to the damage to her home. First, on July 4, 2021,
applicant stated that she and her husband were at their home when the sheriff attempted
to serve a protection order on Mr. Rowe from applicant’s ex-husband; however, applicant
testified that she did not know on July 4, 2021, why the officers came to her house.
Applicant stated that on that day she and her husband were sitting in their home, not
doing anything, when she looked outside and saw men who then started yelling for Mr.
Rowe to come out of the home; applicant averred that she did not know at the time that
the men were law enforcement officers. Applicant stated that she was in shock when this
started happening because there were several guns pointed at her. Applicant testified
that she went upstairs while her husband went outside with his rifle to figure out what was
going on; applicant stated that once the men identified themselves as officers Mr. Rowe
put his rifle inside and did not touch it again. Applicant stated that she experienced severe

2 While the court is unsure of the legal marital status of applicant and Sean Rowe at the time of Mr. Rowe’s

death, the court will refer to Mr. Rowe as applicant’s husband.
Case No. 2023-00257VI                       -3-                                   DECISION

mental distress from this incident. Applicant stated that the officers left her residence that
day without causing any physical damage.
       {¶7}   Second, applicant testified that on July 29, 2021, various sheriff’s deputies
staked out near her home in order to arrest her. Applicant stated that four to six officers
surrounded her vehicle with guns when she was on her way home from a work trip and
shot out her windows. Applicant testified that the officers forcibly removed her from her
car and bashed her head into the road. Applicant stated that the officers arrested her but
did not tell her why she was being arrested because they did not know why. Applicant
testified that she later learned that her arrest was part of a plan to get her husband alone
at their home to serve him with a protection order. Applicant testified that as a result of
this arrest she was held in jail in Richland County from July 29, 2021, to August 13, 2021,
and then spent an additional two weeks at a treatment center. Applicant testified that she
has lasting ocular and cranial damage from this event.
       {¶8}   Applicant testified that the third incident occurred on August 4, 2021.
Applicant stated that law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant for her home.
Applicant asserted that the officers were able to obtain a warrant because her husband
was alone in the home with her rifle and the officers were seeking to charge her husband
for having a weapon under disability based on his prior criminal history. Applicant stated
that there were over twenty officers from various law enforcement agencies present to
execute the search warrant. Applicant testified that there was also a SWAT bearcat
vehicle present.
       {¶9}   As to the damage to her home, applicant stated that every window was shot
out, a support beam was knocked in half under her deck, the bearcat was rammed
through the garage door, and an I-beam was damaged causing foundation issues.
Applicant testified that the Richland County Prosecutor has retained several of her
personal property items. AAG Suffren did not cross-examine applicant.
       {¶10} In her closing argument, AAG Suffren stated that applicant’s claim should
be denied in accordance with R.C. 2743.60(A) because applicant failed to report
criminally injurious conduct from July 4, 2021, or August 4, 2021, to law enforcement.
AAG Suffren stated that state’s Exhibit A attached to the AG’s brief, is the AG’s field report
which concluded that there were no reports to the Richland County Sheriff in which
Case No. 2023-00257VI                        -4-                                   DECISION

applicant was listed as a victim. Further, AAG Suffren stated that there is no evidence
that any criminally injurious conduct, as defined in R.C. 2743.51(C)(1), was committed
against applicant. The AG asserted that this court in In re Clark, 2012-70157VI, found
that the applicant failed to prove that she was a victim of criminally injurious conduct or
that she reported any crime because she did not provide evidence that furnished a
reasonable basis for sustaining her claim. AAG Suffren stated that there was no evidence
presented that applicant was the victim of criminally injurious conduct. AAG Suffren
brought the court’s attention to the Mansfield News Journal article in the transmitted AG
file. The AAG concluded that because the applicant has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that she was the victim of criminally injurious conduct and
no evidence was presented to support this, the court should uphold the AG’s final
decision.
       {¶11} Applicant stated in her closing argument that she attempted to report a
crime committed against her to law enforcement several times but that law enforcement
officers would not take her statement.       Further, applicant reasserted her claim that
excessive force was used against her when she was arrested and that the law
enforcement officers conspired against her. Whereupon the hearing concluded.
       {¶12} 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.
       {¶13} The applicant must prove criminally injurious conduct by a preponderance
of the evidence. In re Rios, 8 Ohio Misc.2d 4, 455 N.E.2d 1374 (Ct. of Cl. 1983).
       {¶14} 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
Case No. 2023-00257VI                      -5-                                  DECISION

as to such issue. In re Staten, Ct. of Cl. No. V2011-60051tc (May 27, 2011) citing Landon
v. Lee Motors, Inc., 161 Ohio St. 82, 118 N.E.2d 147 (1954).
       {¶15} R.C. 2743.60(A) states:
       (A) The attorney general or the court of claims shall not make or order an
       award of reparations to a claimant if the criminally injurious conduct upon
       which the claimant bases a claim never was reported to a law enforcement
       officer or agency.
       {¶16} Here, applicant has not produced any evidence that the work loss, damage
to her home, or other losses for which she seeks reparations is linked to criminally
injurious conduct that she reported to law enforcement. Applicant provided no evidence
that the July 4, 2021, incident was reported to law enforcement or caused any damages
to herself or her property. As to the August 4, 2021, incident, even if the events described
in applicant’s testimony were reported to law enforcement, no evidence provided by
applicant supports a finding that those actions were punishable by fine, imprisonment, or
death because they were performed by law enforcement officers who were found not to
have acted outside their legal duties. The Mansfield News Journal article in the AG’s
transmitted file states that a Richland County Grand Jury ruled that during the August 4,
2021 incident, police officers used justifiable force. Applicant also asserted that the
criminally injurious conduct was swatting committed by her neighbor. Applicant failed to
produce any evidence that this swatting occurred, was reported, or was criminally
injurious conduct as defined in R.C. 2743.51(C)(1). Finally, plaintiff asserted that her
arrest on July 29, 2021, was criminally injurious conduct. However, plaintiff did not submit
any proof that she suffered injuries from this event or that she reported the conduct to law
enforcement.
       {¶17} From review of the case file and with full and careful consideration given to
the testimony of the applicant and the arguments of the Attorney General, the magistrate
finds that 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)(1) or that she
reported any criminal incidents to police as required by R.C. 2743.60(A).
       {¶18} Therefore, I recommend that the AG’s final decision of March 7, 2023, be
AFFIRMED.
Case No. 2023-00257VI                        -6-                                    DECISION

         {¶19} 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).

                                             HOLLY TRUE SHAVER
                                             Magistrate

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

Filed 07/26/2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/23
Case No. 2023-00257VI                        -7-                                 DECISION

                         IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 IN RE: JENNY ROWE                             Case No. 2023-00257VI

 JENNY ROWE                                    Judge Lisa L. Sadler

       Applicant                               ORDER

       {¶20} On June 29, 2023, a hearing was held in this matter before a Magistrate of
this court. On July 26, 2023, the Magistrate issued a Decision wherein she found that
Applicant 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)(1) or that she reported any
criminal incidents to police as required by R.C. 2743.60(A). The Magistrate recommended
that the March 7, 2023, Final Decision of the Attorney General be affirmed.
       {¶21} 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.
       {¶22} Upon review of the claim file, and the Magistrate’s Decision, it is the Court’s
finding that the Magistrate was correct in her analysis of the issues and application of the
law. Accordingly, this court adopts the Magistrate’s Decision and recommendation as its
own.
       {¶23} IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
       {¶24} The July 26, 2023 Decision of the Magistrate is ADOPTED;
       {¶25} This claim is DENIED and judgment entered for state of Ohio;
       {¶26} Costs assumed by the reparations fund.
Case No. 2023-00257VI                    -8-                               DECISION

                                        LISA L. SADLER
                                        Judge

      A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent
by regular mail to Richland County Prosecuting Attorney and to:
Filed 08/10/2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/23