Criminal Trial In Absentia Against Corporation Is Unlawful

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in June of 2009 that a state statute, which the city of Cleveland contended permitted criminal trials in the absence of the defendant (“trial in absentia”), does not apply to criminal trials against corporations in municipal court that are initiated by affidavit or complaint.

After it failed to make ordered repairs to the properties it owned in Cleveland and failed to appear at multiple hearings, the Cleveland Municipal Court found the Defendant, Washington Mutual Bank guilty of building and housing code violations and imposed a fine of $100,000. The Eighth District Court of Appeals overturned the housing court’s judgment and vacated the fine against the bank. The City of Cleveland then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

In its opinion, the Court noted that the state statute, R.C. 2941.47 only refers to a criminal case against a corporation instituted by indictment or information in common pleas court, not a misdemeanor prosecution instituted by complaint or affidavit in municipal court.

Justice Maureen O’Connor concurred with the decision and urged the General Assembly to study the problem of high rates of foreclosure in urban neighborhoods dominated by absentee landlords who permit properties to go into ruin and decay. She said, “[c]ity prosecutors working in municipal and common pleas courts must have a mechanism through which they can constitutionally provide notice to landlords but proceed with trial in absentia if a landlord fails to respond to defend the claim.

Legislative modification of R.C. 2941.47 to permit a municipal court to proceed in absentia is one manner in which this goal can be accomplished.”

In the meantime, the new ruling will force the city of Cleveland to revamp its methods to combat foreclosure. Since the Court of Appeals overturned the $100,000 fine in 2008, the Cleveland Housing Court stopped holding trials in absentia. The Housing Court now finds absentee corporate landowners in contempt of court after their second failure to appear. Fines are then imposed on a daily basis for code violations.

For the full opinion see: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-2219.pdf

More on Business Law