 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Andrews2/26/2002
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
The State of Ohio, plaintiff-appellant, appeals a decision by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which granted a motion to dismiss in favor of Titus Andrews, defendant-appellee.
On December 21, 2000, appellee was indicted by a grand jury for two counts of workers' compensation fraud pursuant to R.C. 2913.48. The indictment alleged:
n or about January 12, 1996 to on or about June 30, 1996, [appellee] in Franklin County, Ohio, with purpose to defraud, or knowing that he was facilitating a fraud, did receive workers' compensation benefits to which he was not entitled, and/or did make or present, or cause to be made or presented a false or misleading statement with the purpose to secure payment for goods or services rendered * or to secure workers' compensation benefits, and/or did alter, falsify, destroy, conceal, or remove any record or document, to-wit: requests for temporary total disability benefits that are necessary to fully establish the validity of any claim filed *.
Count two of the indictment similarly alleged that appellee "with purpose to defraud, or knowing that he was facilitating a fraud, did receive workers' compensation benefits to which he was not entitled" from July 1, 1996 to December 9, 1997.
On May 11, 2001, appellee filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Crim.R. 12(B)(2). Appellee argued in his motion:
During the periods of alleged unlawful activity the [appellee] resided in Hamilton County, Ohio; in fact, he continues to reside in Hamilton County. All of the contacts that the [appellee] made to procure workers' compensation benefits were made in Hamilton County. Equally self-evident is that any alleged wrongdoing occurred in Hamilton County, not Franklin County, therefore venue here is not proper.
On July 23, 2001, the trial court granted appellee's motion to dismiss finding that Franklin County was not the proper venue. Appellant appeals this decision, and presents the following two assignments of error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT LOOKED BEYOND THE FACE OF THE INDICTMENT IN RULING ON A MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER CRIMINAL RULE 12(B)(2).
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT FRANKLIN COUNTY IS NOT A PROPER VENUE FOR THE PROSECUTION OF THIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION FRAUD CASE.
Appellant argues in its second assignment of error the trial court erred when it found Franklin County is not a proper venue in the present case. Appellant claims the special venue provisions of R.C. 2901.12(C) apply because it permits an offender to be tried in any jurisdiction from which the property was taken. Appellant contends that before appellee illegally received $32,507.32 in workers' compensation funds, "that property was located exclusively in Franklin County in the State's insurance fund, administered by the [Bureau of Workers' Compensation] here. This fact, standing alone, makes venue in Franklin County proper for [appellee's] prosecution as a matter of law."
Section 10, Article I, Ohio Constitution provides that a person accused of a crime shall be tried "by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed." R.C. 2901.12 states in part:
(A) The trial of a criminal case in this state shall be held in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, and in the territory of which the offense or any element of the offense was committed.
*
(C) When the offense involved the unlawful taking or receiving of property or the unlawful taking or enticing of an
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|