In re Sanders
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Sanders, 2004-Ohio-4590.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION IN RE: ALAPHONSO O. SANDERS : HEATHER R. LANNING : Case No. V2003-40917 BESSIE SANDERS : Case No. V2003-41034 : DECISION : Judge J. Warren Bettis Applicants : : : : : : : This {¶1} matter came on to be considered upon applicants appeal from the April 21, 2004, order issued by the panel of commissioners. The panel s determination affirmed the final decision of the Attorney General, which denied applicants claim for an award of reparations based upon the finding that the decedent engaged in substantial contributory misconduct, drug trafficking, shortly before he was shot. {¶2} R.C. 2743.52(A) places the burden of proof on an applicant to satisfy the Court of Claims Commissioners that the requirements for an award have been met by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Rios (1983), 8 Ohio Misc.2d 4, 8 OBR 63, 455 N.E.2d 1374. The Attorney General bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to the exclusionary criteria of R.C. 2743.60. In re Williams, V77-0739jud (3-26-79). The panel found, upon review of the evidence, that the Attorney Case Nos. V2003-40917 V2003-41034 -2- DECISION General presented sufficient evidence to meet his burden. {¶3} The standard for reviewing claims that are appealed to the court is established by R.C. 2743.61(C), which provides in pertinent part: If upon hearing and consideration of the record and evidence, the judge decides that the decision of the panel of commissioners is unreasonable or unlawful, the judge shall reverse and vacate the decision or modify it and enter judgment on the claim. The decision of the judge of the court of claims is final. {¶4} This court has previously held that involvement in illegal drug activity is inherently dangerous and constitutes substantial contributory misconduct. V91-88381sc (5-21-92). See, e.g., In re Taylor, In this case, a police report in the claim file shows that applicant Heather Lanning made a statement to an investigating detective that provided detailed information regarding the decedent s drug trafficking activity just prior to the criminally injurious conduct. According to the police report, the decedent had been selling marijuana that afternoon from his residence and was in the process of selling a 20 sack to one of the offenders when he was shot. Although Lanning has since recanted her statement to police, she testified before the panel of commissioners and the panel found her initial account to be more accurate and reliable. This court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. Upon review of the file in this matter, the court {¶5} finds that finding the that panel of applicants commissioners were not was not arbitrary in entitled to an of award reparations. {¶6} Based on the evidence and R.C. 2743.61, it is the Case Nos. V2003-40917 V2003-41034 -2- DECISION court s opinion that the decision of the panel of commissioners was reasonable and lawful. decision of the Therefore, this court affirms the three-commissioner panel, and hereby denies applicants claim. J. WARREN BETTIS Judge IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION IN RE: ALAPHONSO O. SANDERS : HEATHER R. LANNING : Case No. V2003-40917 BESSIE SANDERS : Case No. V2003-41034 : ORDER : Judge J. Warren Bettis Applicants : : : : : : : {¶7} Upon review of the evidence, the court finds the order of the panel of commissioners must be affirmed and applicants appeal must be denied. {¶8}IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1) The order of April 21, 2004, (Jr. Vol. 2253, Pages 89-92) is approved, affirmed and adopted; 2) This claim is DENIED and judgment entered for the State of Ohio; 3) Costs assumed by the reparations fund. Case Nos. V2003-40917 V2003-41034 Filed 7-27-2004 Jr. Vol. 97 J. WARREN BETTIS To S.C. Reporter 8-26-2004 -2- DECISION Judge AMR/cmd A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney and to:
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
