SUSAN G. SHERIDAN
Commissioners:
Susan G. Sheridan, Presiding
William L. Byers IV
E. Joel Wesp
ORDER OF A THREE-COMMISSIONER PANEL
{¶1} On November 25, 2011, the applicant, Samantha Hamilton, filed a compensation application as the result of incidents occurring on September 15, and October 10, 2011. On February 10, 2012, the Attorney General issued a finding of fact and decision denying the applicant's claim determining that she was not a victim of criminally injurious conduct as defined by R.C. 2743.51(C)(1). With respect to the September 15, 2011 incident, applicant alleges that her neighbor, Luther Stiffler, knocked on her daughter's bedroom window. The Attorney General found that this alleged conduct did not pose a substantial threat of personal injury or death. Furthermore, the applicant could not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged death threats Luther Stiffler made to the applicant on October 10, 2011 actually occurred. {¶2} On March 9, 2012, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. The applicant contended that the incident of September 15 should not be viewed in a vacuum, but related to a long history of harassment and intimidation starting with the death of her first husband, Joshua Nunn, on April 1, 2009. Furthermore, the threat made to the applicant by Luther Stiffler did occur and was taken seriously by the applicant since she reported it to the police. Applicant asserted that she was a victim However, there was not a restraining or civil protection stalking order issued in this case, signed by a judge after a full hearing. Rather, a no contact order was agreed to among the parties. The entry required no contact by either party, whether in person or via electronic media. Specially, provision eight of the agreement prohibited both parties from broadcasting or disseminating any disparaging or slanderous allegations about the other. The Attorney General asserts this provision was added to prevent the applicant's prior conduct of distributing flyers throughout the neighborhood. {¶29} Finally, the applicant has failed to present any evidence which corroborates the applicant's allegations. The unsubstantiated allegations of the applicant are insufficient to meet her burden of proof with respect to establishing that criminally injurious conduct occurred.
a. In rebuttal, applicant objected to the Attorney General's request that he be allowed to file a written response to the
Kinkoff-Wrenn case, since this case was proffered in the applicant's request for reconsideration. Whereupon, the hearing was concluded.
{¶30} R.C. 2743.51(C)(1) in pertinent part states:
a. "(C) 'Criminally injurious conduct' means one of the following:
b. "(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."
{¶31} The applicant must prove criminally injurious conduct by a preponderance of the evidence.
In re Rios, 8 Ohio Misc. 2d 4 (1983).
{¶32} 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
at the time of the specific incidents involved. Furthermore, serious threats concerning the brandishing of firearms were never conveyed to police.
{¶39} While applicant argues that we should find the holding in
Kinkoff-Wrenn analogous to the case at bar we disagree. In the
Kinkoff-Wrenn case the applicant's husband confirmed the existence of the electronic messages and physically confronted the offender at their door step. Additionally, the offender's parole officer was contacted and a Cease & Desist Order was issued against the offender. Finally, medical information from her psychiatrist was contained in the file. Taking all the information in total, a panel of commissioners found that the applicant was a victim of menacing by stalking.
{¶40} In the case at bar such corroborating evidence is lacking. While applicant asserts threats were made to her by Luther Stiffler in the presence of her step-son and other
{¶41} neighbors, none of these individuals appeared as witnesses. Furthermore, too many inconsistencies between her testimony and the police reports prevent this panel from finding the applicant has met her burden of proof with respect to criminally injurious conduct.
{¶42} Therefore, the Attorney General's decision of April 9, 2012 is affirmed.
{¶43} IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT
{¶44} The Applicant's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are admitted into evidence;
{¶45} The April 9, 2012 decision of the Attorney General is AFFIRMED;
{¶46} This claim is DENIED and judgment is rendered for the state of Ohio;
{¶47} Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund.
______________
SUSAN G. SHERIDAN
Presiding Commissioner
______________
WILLIAM L. BYERS IV
Commissioner
______________
E. JOEL WESP
Commissioner
ID #I:\Victim Decisions to SC Reporter\Panel Decisions\2012\June - Sept 2012\V2012-70181 Hamilton.wpd\DRB-tad
A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Licking County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Filed 9-26-12
Jr. Vol. 2284, Pgs. 7-16
Sent to S.C. reporter 10-18-12