In re Swint
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Swint, 2006-Ohio-5136.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION www.cco.state.oh.us IN RE: ALEXANDER P. SWINT : : ALEXANDER P. SWINT Applicant {¶ 1} Alexander incurred Swint application with OPINION OF A THREECOMMISSIONER PANEL : : reparations Case No. V2004-60679 respect : : : ( Swint seeking to a : or applicant ) reimbursement November 10, filed of expenses 2002 physical altercation between himself and Bradley Shafer ( Bradley ). March 30, 2004, the Attorney General denied a the On applicant s claim pursuant to R.C. 2743.52(A) contending that the applicant failed to prove that he was the victim of criminally injurious conduct. The Attorney General noted that the police and the prosecutor s office were unable to determine who the initial aggressor was in the matter and hence no charges were filed against either party. On April 19, 2004, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration. On June 17, 2004, the Attorney General issued a Final Decision and stated that the previous decision warranted no modification. On July 12, 2004, the Case No. V2004-60679 Page 1 applicant filed a notice of appeal to the Attorney General s Final Decision. After several continuances, this matter came to be heard before this panel of three commissioners on May 3, 2006 at 11:00 A.M. {¶ 2} For the reasons set forth below, the panel affirms the decision denying reparations to the applicant. This case, as most that others, presents varied versions of facts are all plausible; however, neither the applicant nor the witnesses for the State have presented an entirely plausible version of the origin, the reason for or the likely cause of the physical altercation. {¶ 3} The applicant, the applicant s attorney, and an Assistant Attorney General attended the hearing and presented testimony, an consideration. exhibit, According and to oral the argument testimony for of the Swint, panel s he met Bradley s mother, Patricia Hamilton ( Hamilton ), while the two worked at Nationwide Insurance Company. Swint and Hamilton lived together from 2001-2003 with Hamilton s two sons, Bradley (now age 23) and Todd (now age 20). Swint further testified that he and Bradley had a poor relationship and did not get along particularly because Swint had previously advised Hamilton Case No. V2004-60679 Page 1 not to co-sign for a vehicle loan for Bradley; however, Swint and Bradley had no history of physical altercations. Swint asserted that he attempted to be a father figure to Bradley, to no avail. {¶ 4} Swint further testified that he borrowed Hamilton s vehicle with her permission on November 9, 2002 to go to a bar, where he consumed a few shots of liquor and a few beers. Hours later, he drove home, had a brief discussion with Hamilton, then walked to a neighbor s home, where he consumed more beer. Swint acknowledged that he was very intoxicated when he returned home and added that he had earlier fallen out of a chair at the neighbor s home. A.M. and discussion. down the was Swint stated that he returned home around 4:00 in the living room with Hamilton having a Shortly thereafter, Swint stated that Bradley came stairs and following a brief verbal exchange, a physical altercation ensued. {¶ 5} Swint testified that he never provoked Bradley to strike him and stated that he himself never struck anyone. According to Swint, Bradley came down the stairs and asked him where he had been with Hamilton s car. After Swint responded that it was a matter between himself and Hamilton, Bradley struck him in the Case No. V2004-60679 Page 1 face. Todd also came down the stairs and joined altercation, during which time he bit Swint on the back. the Swint testified that other individuals who were present at the home, (Bradley s girlfriend, Todd s girlfriend, and a male friend of Bradley s), also participated in the altercation. Swint stated that the assault ended when Hamilton instructed Bradley not to hit him over the head with a pan. Swint then contacted the police, who arrived shortly thereafter and transported him to the hospital for treatment to his jaw, shoulder, and back. {¶ 6} Bradley s version of events varied markedly from Swint s in certain respects. According to Bradley, on November 10, 2002 he was at home asleep in his upstairs bedroom because he had to work the next morning when the applicant came home drunk and belligerent. hence he Bradley grew weary of the applicant s behavior and proceeded downstairs. When he arrived downstairs, Bradley stated that Swint stood up from the sofa and lunged at him. Bradley stated that altercation commenced. downstairs house and until that the struck Swint and the physical Bradley explained that Todd also came they police he attempted arrived. to remove At some altercation, Todd bit Swint on the back. Swint point from the during the The incident was the Case No. V2004-60679 Page 1 first physical altercation that Bradley or Todd ever had with Swint. Bradley also noted that he was unaware of any previous physical confrontations between Swint and Hamilton. Contrary to Swint s testimony, Bradley asserted that Swint disliked him and that he was always making negative comments about him and giving him dirty looks. Bradley stated that he believed Swint s comments that evening were threatening and that he struck Swint because he wanted Swint to shut up. Bradley further stated that he feared for his safety as well as that of his mother. addition, Bradley Hamilton, and testified Swint were in that only his the house is equally girlfriend, at the time In Todd, of the altercation. {¶ 7} Hamilton s testimony respects, and questionable in others. credible in some According to Hamilton, although she never gave Swint permission to use her vehicle on November 9, 2002, Swint approximately 10:00 P.M. returned home in the vehicle at Shortly thereafter, Swint left with a neighbor and did not return until approximately 3:00 A.M. on November 10, 2002. When Swint returned home, he was inebriated and Hamilton was asleep on the sofa. Swint then began ranting and raving about Bradley and accused Hamilton of having sexual Case No. V2004-60679 Page 1 relations with him. Hamilton noted that Swint and Bradley held a mutual dislike for one another. that Bradley was upstairs Hamilton further explained sleeping at the time, downstairs after hearing all the commotion. but came Hamilton stated that Swint was sitting on the sofa when Bradley descended the stairs and confronted Swint for talking about him. Hamilton stated that she feared for Bradley s safety, not necessarily her own. Unlike Swint and Bradley, Hamilton stated that Bradley picked up a small, delicate vase containing glass pebbles and hit Swint over the head. Swint then threw a plate across the room, stood and lunged at Bradley, but Todd tackled Swint to the floor. Hamilton stated that the incident ended when she stopped Bradley from explained striking that she the then applicant contacted with the a pan. police, who Hamilton arrived a short time later and escorted Swint from the premises. {¶ 8} The claim applicant s should be allowed attorney based argued on the that the testimony applicant s proffered. Counsel stated that historically, loudness and inebriation do not amount to contributory misconduct under this program in order to disqualify a victim/applicant from an award. Counsel asserted clearly that based on the evidence, the applicant Case No. V2004-60679 Page 1 qualifies as a victim of criminally injurious conduct, since he was assaulted. Counsel noted that everyone testified that the applicant struck applicant never sustained anyone. injuries Counsel as also indicated noted in that Exhibit (photographs of Swint s injuries after the assault). the 1 Counsel argued that the applicant was assaulted merely because he was drunk, loud, and engaging in abusive talk. Counsel asserted that there is no evidence to find that the applicant engaged in any force or threat of imminent force with any of the parties involved in the incident to have warranted the assault. {¶ 9} However, that the the applicant s Assistant claim Attorney should be General denied. maintained The Assistant Attorney General argued that the applicant s intoxicated state and threatening behavior warranted Bradley s response. The Assistant Attorney General stated that but for the applicant s behavior there would have been no physical altercation. {¶ 10} From consideration review given of to the all file the and with information full and presented hearing, we make the following determination. careful at the A prima facie claim is typically made when an applicant files an application in accordance with R.C. 2743.56 and submits such additional Case No. V2004-60679 Page 1 material, information, and evidence as required by R.C. 2743.59. However, this panel is of the view that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Swint was the victim of criminally injurious conduct, specifically an assault in this case. {¶ 11} Revised Code 2743.51(C)(1) in part states: (C) Criminally injurious conduct means one of the following: (1) For the purposes of any person described in division (A)(1) of attempted personal this in section, this injury or state; any conduct poses death; and a is that occurs substantial or is threat of 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. {¶ 12} Based on the varied testimony regarding the physical altercation, along with the inherent unreliability of the recollection of a then-heavily intoxicated applicant, we find that {¶ 13} Swint has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Bradley s actions constituted an assault. Case No. V2004-60679 Page 1 {¶ 14} Three versions of the events that transpired that evening were presented, but the only consistent facts were as follows: 1) Swint had been drinking alcohol heavily for a number of hours; 2) Swint woke Hamilton up when he returned home at 4:00 A.M. and started ranting about Bradley; 3) Swint s and Hamilton s argument was loud enough to wake Bradley; 4) Swint made lewd arose from accusations his against seated Hamilton position on and the Bradley; 5) couch when Swint Bradley descended the steps; 6) Bradley feared for the safety of his mother; 7) Hamilton feared for the safety of her sons; 8) Swint lunged toward Bradley in a manner that was perceived to be a threat; 9) the police department and prosecutor s office failed to charge or prosecute either Swint or Bradley; 10) Swint and Bradley had a history of verbal altercations with one another; 11) there was some form of physical altercation; and 12) Swint is physically larger than Bradley and, but for his intoxicated state, could have seriously injured Bradley during a physical confrontation. {¶ 15} Based on the above, we believe it would have been questionable logic and sensibility for Bradley to attack Swint and invite him into a physical altercation, especially when Case No. V2004-60679 Page 1 Bradley would have likely been overtaken. By the same token, it is initial reasonable to believe that Bradley s blow was to prevent a potential or probable attack to his person or to his mother. The uncertainty. evidence Moreover, presented the panel does not does not outweigh this believe that Bradley s conduct was punishable by fine, imprisonment or death in accordance conduct. with the definition of criminally injurious Therefore, the June 17, 2004 decision of the Attorney General shall be affirmed and the claim denied. _______________________________________ LLOYD PIERRE-LOUIS Commissioner _______________________________________ THOMAS H. BAINBRIDGE Commissioner _______________________________________ TIM MC CORMACK Commissioner Case No. V2004-60679 Page 1 IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION www.cco.state.oh.us IN RE: ALEXANDER P. SWINT : : ALEXANDER P. SWINT Applicant Case No. V2004-60679 ORDER OF A THREECOMMISSIONER PANEL : : : : : : IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 1) The June 17, 2004 decision of the Attorney General is AFFIRMED pursuant to R.C. 2743.52(A); 2) This claim is DENIED and judgment is rendered for the state of Ohio; 3) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund. _______________________________________ LLOYD PIERRE-LOUIS Commissioner _______________________________________ THOMAS H. BAINBRIDGE Commissioner _______________________________________ [Cite as In re Swint, 2006-Ohio-5136.] TIM MC CORMACK Commissioner ID #\26-tad-060506 A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Stark County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Case No. V200X-XXXXX Filed 8-4-2006 Jr. Vol. 2261, Pg. 29 To S.C. Reporter 9-29-2006 -10- ORDER
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.
