Youngstown Daily Legal News

1st District appellate court remands case based on amended complaint

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: May 17, 2013

A 1st District appellate panel ruled to remand a case to the Hamilton County Municipal Court on Wednesday due to an invalid amended complaint filed against the defendant.

On April 10, 2012, a complaint for telecommunications harassment was issued against Marshell Finch.

The alleged victim of Finch’s offense was Ayesha Shabazz, who testified that during the period of February through March 2012, Finch called her more than 100 times.

Case summary stated that the calls were threatening and they continued despite Shabazz’s requests that Finch stop.

Shabazz recorded a phone call from Finch on April 11, 2012. The prosecution asked permission to play the recorded call in court.

However, the defense objected and argued that the call could not be used as evidence because it had been made approximately one month after the date of the offense stated in the complaint.

Summary of court proceedings stated that the prosecution then moved to “amend the complaint to conform to the evidence and reflect a date of offense of April 11, 2012.”

The trial court granted the state’s motion and the call was played during trial. The court subsequently found Finch guilty of telecommunications harassment.

In her appeal, Finch argued that the trial court erred by granting the state’s motion, leading to a defective complaint which left the trial court with no jurisdiction.

Presiding Judge Sylvia Hendon wrote the opinion on behalf of the appellate panel.

In it she stated that the Hamilton County Municipal Court has jurisdiction over misdemeanors committed within its territorial jurisdiction however, “a municipal court will not acquire jurisdiction of a case that originates with a defective or invalid complaint.”

“The original complaint issued in this case was in compliance with Crim.R.3,” wrote Hendon. “The complaint, issued on April 10, 2012, alleged that Finch had committed the offense ... in violation of R.C. 2917.21 and that she had committed this offense on or about March 9, 2012.”

Hendon stated that the complaint was properly made upon oath and it contained a supporting statement of facts.

A complaint can be amended at any time, given that no change is made to the name or identity of the crime charged, under Crim.R.7(D).

“The complaint in this case, issued on April 10, reflected a date of offense of April 11,” wrote Hendon. “Finch argues that because the complaint reflected a date of offense that was subsequent to the date that the complaint was filed, it was defective.”

On the other hand, the state argued that the amendment was proper because it did not affect the name or identity of the crime, but merely changed the date.

In its defense of its motion to amend, the prosecution cited several cases that upheld an amendment to reflect a date of offense that was subsequent to the date provided in the original complaint.

The appellate panel contended that the court opinions cited by the prosecutor were distinguishable from Finch’s case because the amended complaint did not reflect a date of offense subsequent to the date on which the original complaint had been issued.

“Case law on the amendment of indictments in felony cases is instructive,” Hendon stated.

In support of the appellate panel’s argument, Hendon cited a 2nd District Court of Appeals case in which the court considered the validity of an indictment that had been amended to reflect a date of offense after the date that the defendant had originally been charged.

“The court held that the amended indictment was not valid because ‘by amending the indictment, it is also clear that the crime alleged in the amended indictment was, at least in part, neither presented to nor considered and returned by the grand jury,’” Hendon wrote.

The court of appeals held that the same rules apply to complaints that reflect a date of the offense that comes after the filing of the complaint.

“In this situation, the complaint would facially indicate that a crime was going to occur at some point in the future,” wrote the court. “The person authorized by law to make the complaint under oath cannot swear that a crime will be committed in the future.”

The panel ruled the complaint became invalid once the trial court allowed the motion to amend it and consequently, the municipal court did not have jurisdiction to render judgment against Finch.

The trial court’s judgment convicting Finch of telecommunications harassment was reversed and the case was remanded with instructions to the trial court to dismiss the complaint against Finch.

Judges Lee Hildebrandt and Penelope Cunningham joined Hendon to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Finch, 2013-Ohio-1862.

[Back]