unjustifiable standard in Ohio

2023Selective prosecution claims sound in equal protection and protect against prosecutions “based on ‘an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’” State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 , 2002-Ohio-2128 , 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 43 , quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 , 116 S.Ct. 1480 , 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996), quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962). {¶ 17} In State v. Flynt, 63 Ohio St.2d 132, 134 , 407 N.E.2d 15 (1980), the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the following test with regard to selective-prosecution

2023Selective prosecution claims sound in equal protection and protect against prosecutions “based on ‘an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’” State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 , 2002-Ohio-2128 , 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 43 , quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 , 116 S.Ct. 1480 , 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996), quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962). {¶ 17} In State v. Flynt, 63 Ohio St.2d 132, 134 , 407 N.E.2d 15 (1980), the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the following test with regard to selective-prosecution

2004Selective prosecution violates the Equal Protection Clause when it is “deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 ; Snowden v. Hughes (1944), 321 U.S. 1 , 64 S.Ct. 397 , 88 L.Ed. 497 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 . {¶ 5} In establishment of a selective-prosecution claim, a defendant must show that the prosecution had a discriminatory effect and that the prosecution was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.

2004Selective prosecution violates the Equal Protection Clause when it is “deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 ; Snowden v. Hughes (1944), 321 U.S. 1 , 64 S.Ct. 397 , 88 L.Ed. 497 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 . {¶ 5} In establishment of a selective-prosecution claim, a defendant must show that the prosecution had a discriminatory effect and that the prosecution was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.

2004Selective prosecution violates the Equal Protection Clause when it is “deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 ; Snowden v. Hughes (1944), 321 U.S. 1 , 64 S.Ct. 397 , 88 L.Ed. 497 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 . {¶ 5} In establishment of a selective-prosecution claim, a defendant must show that the prosecution had a discriminatory effect and that the prosecution was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.

2004Selective prosecution violates the Equal Protection Clause when it is “deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 ; Snowden v. Hughes (1944), 321 U.S. 1 , 64 S.Ct. 397 , 88 L.Ed. 497 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 . {¶ 5} In establishment of a selective-prosecution claim, a defendant must show that the prosecution had a discriminatory effect and that the prosecution was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.

2016State v. Keene, 81 Ohio St.3d 646, 653 , 693 N.E.2d 246 (1998).

2016State v. Keene, 81 Ohio St.3d 646, 653 , 693 N.E.2d 246 (1998).

2002Second, the defendant must show that the “selection is ‘deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’” Cleveland v. Trzebuckowski (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 524, 532 , 709 N.E.2d 1148, 1155-1156 , citing State v. Wolery (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 316, 325-326 , 75 O.O.2d 366 , 348 N.E.2d 351, 358 , and quoting Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (emphasis supplied).

2002Second, the defendant must show that the “selection is ‘deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’” Cleveland v. Trzebuckowski (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 524, 532 , 709 N.E.2d 1148, 1155-1156 , citing State v. Wolery (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 316, 325-326 , 75 O.O.2d 366 , 348 N.E.2d 351, 358 , and quoting Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (emphasis supplied).

2023Selective prosecution claims sound in equal protection and protect against prosecutions “based on ‘an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’” State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 , 2002-Ohio-2128 , 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 43 , quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 , 116 S.Ct. 1480 , 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996), quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962). {¶ 17} In State v. Flynt, 63 Ohio St.2d 132, 134 , 407 N.E.2d 15 (1980), the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the following test with regard to selective-prosecution

2016Selective prosecution claims sound in equal protection and protect against prosecutions “based on ‘an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’” State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 , 2002-Ohio-2128, ¶ 43 , quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996), quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962).

2016Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364-365 , 98 S.Ct. 663 , 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978), quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962).

1980C. 3321.38, in our system of justice “so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring*** generally rests entirely in his discretion,” Bordenkircher v. Hayes (1978), 434 U. S. 357, 364 , unless his decision making is based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race or religion.

1999In 1962, the United States Supreme Court articulated the standard for selective prosecution under the Equal Protection Clause to the United States Constitution: a selection “deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” 2 Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446, 453 , citing Oregon v. Hicks (1958), 213 Ore. 619 , 325 P.2d 794 , and referencing Snowden v. Hughes (1944), 321 U.S. 1 , 64 S.Ct. 397 , 88 L.Ed. 497 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 .

1999In 1962, the United States Supreme Court articulated the standard for selective prosecution under the Equal Protection Clause to the United States Constitution: a selection “deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” 2 Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446, 453 , citing Oregon v. Hicks (1958), 213 Ore. 619 , 325 P.2d 794 , and referencing Snowden v. Hughes (1944), 321 U.S. 1 , 64 S.Ct. 397 , 88 L.Ed. 497 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 .

1999Cf. McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420 , 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 , and Two Guys From Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley (1961), 366 U.S. 582 , 81 S.Ct. 1135 , 6 L.Ed.2d 551 , in which the Supreme Court held that “Sunday blue laws” did not violate the Equal Protection Clause under the traditional statutory rational-basis review (In Two Guys the court recognized the potential separate issue of selective enforcement [but held it moot in that specific case],), and Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446, 453 , in which the Supreme Court establishe

1999Cf. McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420 , 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 , and Two Guys From Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley (1961), 366 U.S. 582 , 81 S.Ct. 1135 , 6 L.Ed.2d 551 , in which the Supreme Court held that “Sunday blue laws” did not violate the Equal Protection Clause under the traditional statutory rational-basis review (In Two Guys the court recognized the potential separate issue of selective enforcement [but held it moot in that specific case],), and Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446, 453 , in which the Supreme Court establishe

1999Cf. McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420 , 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 , and Two Guys From Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley (1961), 366 U.S. 582 , 81 S.Ct. 1135 , 6 L.Ed.2d 551 , in which the Supreme Court held that “Sunday blue laws” did not violate the Equal Protection Clause under the traditional statutory rational-basis review (In Two Guys the court recognized the potential separate issue of selective enforcement [but held it moot in that specific case],), and Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446, 453 , in which the Supreme Court establishe

1999Cf. McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420 , 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 , and Two Guys From Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley (1961), 366 U.S. 582 , 81 S.Ct. 1135 , 6 L.Ed.2d 551 , in which the Supreme Court held that “Sunday blue laws” did not violate the Equal Protection Clause under the traditional statutory rational-basis review (In Two Guys the court recognized the potential separate issue of selective enforcement [but held it moot in that specific case],), and Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446, 453 , in which the Supreme Court establishe

1999The court in State v. Jones , stated that "[a] violation of the Equal Protection Clause occurs where there is deliberate discrimination between persons in similar circumstances based upon an unjustifiable standard, such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification." Id. at 86 citing Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448 , 456 .

1989“A violation of the Equal Protection Clause occurs where there is deliberate discrimination between persons in similar circumstances based upon an unjustifiable standard, such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” State v. Jones (1986), 30 Ohio App.3d 85, 86 , 506 N.E.2d 1187, 1190 , citing Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446, 453 .

1999Nagle v. Olin (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 341 , 18 O.O.3d 503 , 415 N.E.2d 279 : “[The] selection is ‘deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Wolery at 325-326 , 75 O.O.2d at 372 , 348 N.E.2d at 358 , quoting Oyler, 368 U.S. at 456 , 82 S.Ct. at 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d at 453 . 3 See, also, 2 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure (1984) 185-203, Section 13.4; Annotation, What Constitutes Such Discriminatory Prosecution or Enforcement of Laws as to Provide Valid Defense in State Criminal Proceedings (1979; Supp.1998), 95

1999Nagle v. Olin (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 341 , 18 O.O.3d 503 , 415 N.E.2d 279 : “[The] selection is ‘deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Wolery at 325-326 , 75 O.O.2d at 372 , 348 N.E.2d at 358 , quoting Oyler, 368 U.S. at 456 , 82 S.Ct. at 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d at 453 . 3 See, also, 2 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure (1984) 185-203, Section 13.4; Annotation, What Constitutes Such Discriminatory Prosecution or Enforcement of Laws as to Provide Valid Defense in State Criminal Proceedings (1979; Supp.1998), 95

2024A prosecutor’s discretion is not unfettered, and the “decision whether to prosecute may not be based upon ‘an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’” Id., quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 , 116 S.Ct. 1480 , 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996). 23 Merely showing that “another person similarly situated was not prosecuted is not enough; a defendant must demonstrate actual discrimination due to invidious motives or bad faith.” State v. Freeman (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 55, 58 , 485 N.E.2d 1043 .

2024A prosecutor’s discretion is not unfettered, and the “decision whether to prosecute may not be based upon ‘an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’” Id., quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 , 116 S.Ct. 1480 , 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996). 23 Merely showing that “another person similarly situated was not prosecuted is not enough; a defendant must demonstrate actual discrimination due to invidious motives or bad faith.” State v. Freeman (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 55, 58 , 485 N.E.2d 1043 .

2013State v. Keene, 81 Ohio St.3d 646, 653 , 1998-Ohio-342 , 693 N.E.2d 246 (1998).

2005Although a selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, a defendant may raise it as an `independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution.' State v. Getsy (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 180 , 203 , 1998-Ohio-533 .

2004Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; United States v. Tucor Internatl., Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1998), 35 F.Supp.2d 1172 , affirmed on other grounds (C.A.9, 1999), 189 F.3d 834 .

2004Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; United States v. Tucor Internatl., Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1998), 35 F.Supp.2d 1172 , affirmed on other grounds (C.A.9, 1999), 189 F.3d 834 .

2004Thus, he argues that this demonstrates that discrimination is being perpetrated against him, an African-American, and all other similarly situated African-Americans. {¶ 15} Selective prosecution violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it is "deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification." Cleveland v. Trzebuckowski, 85 Ohio St.3d 524 , 530 , 1999-Ohio-285 , quoting Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448 , 456 . {¶ 16} The record in this case contains no indication that the

1999Nagle v. Olin (1980), 64 January Term, 1999 Ohio St.2d 341 , 18 O.O.3d 503 , 415 N.E.2d 279 : “[The] selection is ‘deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Wolery at 325-326 , 75 O.O.2d at 372 , 348 N.E.2d at 358 , quoting Oyler, 368 U.S. at 456 , 82 S.Ct. at 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d at 453 .3 See, also, 2 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure (1984) 185-203, Section 13.4; Annotation, What Constitutes Such Discriminatory Prosecution or Enforcement of Laws as to Provide Valid Defense in State Criminal Proceedings (197

1999Cf. McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420 , 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 , and Two Guys From Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley (1961), 366 U.S. 582 , 81 S.Ct. 1135 , 6 L.Ed.2d 551 , in which the Supreme Court held “Sunday blue laws” did not violate the Equal Protection Clause under the traditional statutory rational-basis review (In Two Guys the court recognized the potential separate issue of selective enforcement [but held it moot in that specific case].), and Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446, 453 , in which the Supreme Court established the

1999Wayte v. U.S. (1985) 105 S.Ct. 1524 , 1531 , 470 U.S. 598 , 84 L.Ed.2d 547 ; State v. Getsy (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 180 ; Flint, supra. The citation was written before appellant filed a complaint against the police.

1999Wayte v. U.S. (1985) 105 S.Ct. 1524 , 1531 , 470 U.S. 598 , 84 L.Ed.2d 547 ; State v. Getsy (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 180 ; Flint, supra. The citation was written before appellant filed a complaint against the police.

1976A. 8, 1971), 439 F. 2d 1349, 1350-1351 ; United States v. Sacco ,(C.