The Ohio Supreme Court takes up Akron v. Stone, determining whether an Akron man’s gun must be returned to him after he was arrested over a road-rage fistfight, where he threatened to shoot the other driver. After arresting him, police searched Stone’s car, finding his Smith and Wesson nine-millimeter handgun. But Stone argues that the forfeiture of his gun cannot stand, as prosecutors missed a procedural step in his indictment required by a 2007 Ohio law: a forfeiture specification. The State of Ohio contends that Stone, by agreeing to a forfeiture hearing, rendered that procedural step moot.
The Ohio Supreme Court declined to directly answer whether a trial court has the authority to take property without these documents, but the Court accepted two other propositions of law. Notably, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Akron v. Stone affirmed the Summit County trial court when it ordered Stone to forfeit his gun. No forfeiture specification, which details what property the State argues the defendant should not get back, was attached to charging documents.
In 2024, David Stone got into a minor accident with another motorist. After both drivers pulled into the parking lot of a Home Depot, they began fighting. The argument got heated with Stone eventually punching the other driver in the face and threatening to shoot him with his gun. Police were called to the scene, where they arrested Stone and searched his truck, finding a gun under the passenger seat. Summit County prosecutors charged Stone with aggravated menacing and assault but never filed a forfeiture specification. Stone accepted a plea deal for disorderly conduct, and the parties agreed to set a forfeiture hearing for the gun. The Summit County Magistrate Judge presiding over the hearing ordered Stone to forfeit the gun.
Stone argued that neither the trial court nor the magistrate had the authority to order forfeiture because no forfeiture specification was ever filed. This process of transferring ownership to the state of property allegedly used in a crime is known as civil forfeiture. In 2007, Ohio laws on civil forfeiture were amended, requiring a forfeiture specification attached to charging documents where the State seeks to seize a defendant’s property in a criminal case.
The trial court overruled Stone’s objection on grounds that he had waived the statutory requirement by agreeing to the hearing as part of the plea agreement. Stone appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
In 2025, the Ninth District ultimately upheld the lower court’s ruling in a 3-0 opinion. Stone argued that authority to order forfeiture in these cases extends only where forfeiture specifications are filed; therefore, the trial court had no authority to order the forfeiture. The Ninth District Court of Appeals, on the other hand, held that “[t]he lack of a forfeiture specification in the complaint . . . did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction over a forfeiture hearing that the parties agreed upon as part of a plea agreement.” The Court further explained that “if the parties agree to the forfeiture of property as part of a plea agreement, then ‘adherence to statutory forfeiture procedure is unnecessary.’” Although the Court acknowledged that Stone only agreed to a hearing and not to forfeiting his gun, it concluded that “this is a distinction without a difference.”
Stone filed a motion to reconsider due to the court failing to address his lack-of-statutory-authority argument. In denying that motion, the Ninth District said that it did consider the argument but does not expand on how. The Court does not mention statutory authority in its opinion but seems to indicate that subject matter jurisdiction alone would give a court the authority to adjudicate and order forfeiture. It is unclear. Stone’s request for rehearing en banc was denied on the grounds that the panel decided the appeal 3-0, which constitutes a majority of the five-judge district.
Now Stone appeals to the Ohio Supreme Court on three propositions of law — the Court only agreeing to review propositions two and three:
1: When the government files no forfeiture specification, a trial court has no authority to order a defendant to forfeit seized property.
2: A defendant’s agreeing to a hearing on the government’s request for forfeiture does not forgo a challenge to the trial court’s authority to order forfeiture.
3: A five-member court of appeals’ local rule limiting en banc consideration to decisions decided by a 2-1 vote of a three-member panel is inconsistent with App.R. 26(A)(2)(a) and therefore unconstitutional.
Stone warns that allowing this forfeiture would effectively circumvent the will of the Ohio legislature by allowing forfeitures to be appended to plea agreements. He argues this will be the new “template for how to circumvent not just the legislature’s forfeiture-specification requirement, but any other statutory safeguard meant to discourage forfeiture.” At a minimum, because the Supreme Court refused to consider Stone’s first proposition of law, it seems unwilling to entertain Stone’s argument that the 2007 amended law bars trial courts from ordering forfeiture where no specification was filed.
The Court was fractured as to which propositions of law, if any, should be considered. Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and Justices Patrick Fischer and Daniel Hawkins voted to hear all three propositions, while Justices Patrick DeWine, Joseph Deters, and Megan Shanahan voted against appellate review altogether. Justice Jennifer Brunner was the tiebreaker, denying proposition one and accepting propositions two and three.
The case is in the briefing stage with arguments expected later this year. Ohio Court Watch will cover updates as the case progresses.