In re Rettich
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Rettich, 2006-Ohio-3939.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION www.cco.state.oh.us IN RE: ROBERT W. RETTICH, IV : Case No. V2005-80827 ROBERT W. RETTICH, IV : ORDER OF A THREECOMMISSIONER PANEL Applicant : : : : : : {¶ 1} Robert Rettich ( applicant or Mr. Rettich ) filed a reparations application seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred with respect to a June 21, 2003 shooting incident. On September 8, 2005, the Attorney General denied the applicant s claim pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(F) contending that the applicant engaged in substantial contributory misconduct, because he was attempting to purchase marijuana. On October 3, 2005, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration asserting that the claim should be reduced and not denied. On November 29, 2005, the Attorney General issued a Final Decision denying the claim once again pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(F). The Attorney General stated that the applicant admitted to a police officer that he was attempting to purchase marijuana when he was shot. On December 9, 2005, the applicant filed a notice of appeal to the Attorney General s Final Decision. Hence, this matter came to be heard before this panel of three commissioners on March 8, 2006 at 11:40 A.M. {¶ 2} The applicant, the applicant s attorney, and an Assistant Attorney General attended the hearing and presented testimony and oral argument for this panel s consideration. Case No. V2005-80827 Sergeant Police Craig -1- Richardson Department ( Sgt. testified ORDER Richardson ) that on June of 21, the 2003 Moraine he was contacted at home and dispatched to the scene of the incident. Sgt. Richardson stated that the applicant and the offender were already gone when he arrived at the scene, with the applicant having been transported to the hospital. Sgt. Richardson stated that he interviewed the applicant on June 23, 2003 and July 15, 2003. Sgt. Richardson indicated that during the July 15, 2003 interview the applicant admitted to him that he met the offender in order to purchase marijuana. also interviewed shooting.1 the the offender Sgt. Richardson noted that he on applicant police sandwich 10, 2003 about the Sgt. Richardson explained that the offender told him was shot because he duffle bag containing marijuana. the July discovered baggies of had to steal a Sgt. Richardson revealed that rolling papers, marijuana, and applicant s vehicle. attempted 11 empty marijuana baggies, seeds in two the Sgt. Richardson stated that he believed the applicant is knowledgeable about drug transactions and that he is a drug dealer. Sgt. Richardson explained that any transaction in marijuana is a felony offense. {¶ 3} Mr. Rettich (now age 22) testified that, as a result of the shooting, administered applicant a he was variety denied that hospitalized of he narcotics ever for to traded six ease or days his sold and was pain. The marijuana and stated that he was only at the scene to purchase a recreational amount of marijuana ($200.00 worth) for himself and friends. 1 Sgt. Richardson s testimony concerning the interviews mirrors the police report. Case No. V2005-80827 -1- ORDER The applicant stated that he never attempted to steal from the offender, especially since the offender was twice his size. {¶ 4} The applicant s counsel stated that based on the applicant s testimony an award of reparations should be granted and reduced in order to allow the applicant some measure of recovery. Counsel argued that this incident was not a drug deal gone bad, but a robbery attempt since the offender was charged with such. Counsel asserted that the applicant had only limited exposure to the drug culture and hence counsel urged the panel to consider the applicant s age and experience with regard to this matter. {¶ 5} The Assistant Attorney General maintained the claim should be denied since the applicant was engaged in substantial contributory misconduct at the time he was shot. Attorney General stated that the applicant The Assistant admitted injured while attempting to purchase marijuana. he was The Assistant Attorney General asserted that it is widely known by the court that drug dealing is an inherently dangerous activity and hence the applicant should have known that he could have been harmed by engaging in such activity. Moreover, the Assistant Attorney General contended that the evidence indicates the applicant was a drug trafficker himself, since he admitted under oath that he was buying marijuana for his friends as well as for himself at the time of the criminally injurious conduct. {¶ 6} Revised Code 2743.51(M) states: (M) "Contributory misconduct" means any conduct of the claimant or of the victim through whom the claimant claims an award of reparations that is unlawful or intentionally tortious and that, without regard to the conduct's Case No. V2005-80827 -1- ORDER proximity in time or space to the criminally injurious conduct, has a causal relationship to the criminally injurious conduct that is the basis of the claim. {¶ 7} Revised Code 2743.60(F) states: (F) In pursuant determining to this commissioners whether section, shall to a consider make single an award of commissioner whether there was reparations or panel of contributory misconduct by the victim or the claimant. A single commissioner or a panel of commissioners shall reduce an award of reparations or deny a claim for an award of reparations to the extent it is determined to be reasonable because of the contributory misconduct of the claimant or the victim. If the attorney general recommends that a claim be denied because of an allegation of contributory misconduct that is supported by the finding of fact in division (C)(6) of section 2743.59 of the Revised Code, the burden of proof on the issue of that alleged contributory misconduct shall be upon the claimant, if either of the following apply: (1) The victim was convicted of a felony more than ten years prior to the criminally injurious conduct that is the subject of the claim or has a record of felony arrests under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States; (2) There is good cause to believe that the victim engaged in an ongoing course of criminal conduct within five years or less of the criminally injurious conduct that is the subject of the claim. Case No. V2005-80827 {¶ 8} From -1- review consideration given of the to all ORDER file the and with full information (9-23-05), victim s claim admitted to criminally 2005-Ohio-5673 pursuant the to police injurious R.C. that conduct to was the at at the In In re Staaf, panel 2743.60(F), he careful presented hearing, we make the following determination. V04-61012tc and when the purchase denied the scene victim of illegal the the drugs. Accordingly, we find that Mr. Rettich engaged in substantial contributory misconduct illegal transaction. drug when he attempted Therefore, the to engage November in 29, an 2005 decision of the Attorney General shall be affirmed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 1) The November 29, 2005 decision of the Attorney General is AFFIRMED; 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. _______________________________________ RANDI OSTRY LE HOTY Commissioner _______________________________________ THOMAS H. BAINBRIDGE Commissioner _______________________________________ TIM MC CORMACK Commissioner ID #\3-dld-tad-042606 [Cite as In re Rettich, 2006-Ohio-3939.] A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Filed 6-2-06 Jr. Vol. 2260, Pgs. 129 - 133 To S.C. Reporter 8-2-06 Case No. V2005-80827 -1- 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.
