A Hocking County man released from prison after spending six years on death row had his hopes of being declared wrongfully imprisoned revived by the Ohio Supreme Court today. Dale Johnston, who was convicted in 1984 for the murders of his stepdaughter and her fiancé, seeks compensation from the state for his imprisonment.

On behalf of a unanimous Court, Justice Terrence O’Donnell wrote that a 2003 amendment to the state’s wrongful imprisonment law expanding the definition of a wrongfully imprisoned individual applies retroactively, thus allowing claims to be brought based on procedural errors made after sentencing even though an earlier wrongful imprisonment claim asserting actual innocence had been rejected.

Johnston’s convictions were overturned after he went to prison because the state had failed to disclose some potentially important evidence to the defense and because witness testimony refreshed by hypnosis was improperly admitted. The Court ruled today that Johnston was permitted to file a second claim for wrongful imprisonment because the 2003 amendment applies retroactively and he was able to show a post-sentencing procedural error.

Today’s decision reverses the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ judgment on that issue, but the case now returns to the appeals court for review of the state’s other legal arguments that had been declared moot by that court.

Convictions Reversed on Appeal
In fall 1982, Johnston’s stepdaughter and her fiancé were found murdered and dismembered in Hocking County. Johnston was indicted almost a year later, and the trial court found him guilty in both murders and sentenced him to death.

The Court ruled today that Johnston was permitted to file a second claim for wrongful imprisonment because a 2003 legislative amendment applies retroactively and he was able to show a post-sentencing procedural error.

The Court ruled today that Johnston was permitted to file a second claim for wrongful imprisonment because a 2003 legislative amendment applies retroactively and he was able to show a post-sentencing procedural error.

However, the appellate court overturned the convictions and ordered a new trial. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, concluding the trial court should not have allowed a witness to testify based on recollections brought back by hypnosis and that the prosecution had failed to provide evidence to the defense suggesting the victims may have been murdered in a different location by someone else.

In the new proceedings, the trial court ruled against the admission of certain disputed evidence and the state then dropped the charges against Johnston. He was freed from prison in 1990. Johnston filed his first wrongful imprisonment claim in 1993, but the common pleas court dismissed it because he had not proven his innocence, which was required by the wrongful imprisonment statute at the time.

Johnston Makes Second Wrongful Imprisonment Claim
In 2003 the legislature amended the wrongful imprisonment statute to permit procedural error claims, and in December 2008, a man named Chester McKnight pled guilty to the murders of Johnston’s stepdaughter and her fiancé. Johnston then filed a second wrongful imprisonment case claiming that he is innocent and that, based on the 2003 changes in the law, procedural errors led to his release. The common pleas court agreed that Johnston qualified as wrongfully imprisoned based on the 2003 amendment.

Before Johnston could pursue the next step of his wrongful imprisonment claim in the Ohio Court of Claims, the state appealed the common pleas court’s decision. The Tenth District held that the 2003 amendment did not apply retroactively to Johnston’s case and, given that, did not rule on the state’s additional claims. Johnston appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Court Reviews Whether Law Is Retroactive
Justice O’Donnell followed Supreme Court precedent to determine whether the 2003 amendment to the wrongful imprisonment statute applies retroactively.

In the 2003 legislation, the General Assembly indicated in part that the amendment applies to civil actions in the Court of Claims “commenced on or after the effective date of this act,” which was April 9, 2003.

Justice O’Donnell explained that the language shows the General Assembly intended the law not to be limited to only those wrongfully imprisoned after the 2003 effective date. Johnston filed his claim in common pleas court years after the act’s effective date and the second part of his wrongful imprisonment case has not yet been filed in the Court of Claims. The amended law thus applies to Johnston’s claim, Justice O’Donnell concluded.

“Regarding the second step in the retroactivity analysis, the 2003 amendment is substantive because it imposes new liability on the state for past imprisonments,” he wrote. “However, because the amendment impairs only the rights of the state and not those of individuals seeking recovery for wrongful imprisonment, the amendment may nonetheless constitutionally be given retroactive effect in light of the General Assembly’s clear expression of its intent for retroactivity.”

Case Sent Back to Appeals Court for Further Review
The court returned the case to the Tenth District for that court to consider the state’s other arguments – that a six-year statute of limitations applies to the case, that Johnston cannot assert his actual innocence claim again, and that he did not meet other requirements of the wrongful imprisonment statute.

2014-0530. Johnston v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4437.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.