December 11, 2024
IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Prosecutor Colleen M. O’Toole
Phone: 440-576-2332
E-mail: prosecutor@ashtabulacounty.us
Re: State v. Hickman, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5747
Ashtabula County Prosecutor Colleen M. O’Toole and Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys Mark Majer and Matthew Hebebrand have secured a victory before the Ohio Supreme Court in the case of State v. Hickman, affirming the order of the trial court denying Mr. Hickman’s request for conditional release to a nonsecured location after being found not guilty by reasons of insanity to two counts of aggravated murder in 1984. As a result, the Prosecutor’s office has successfully kept a mass murderer from being released into the community after being incarcerated or in a mental health facility for the past 44 years.
In a case of first impression, the Ohio Supreme Court interpreted R.C. 2945.401 as it applies to a committed individual’s request to be moved to a “nonsecured status.” In adopting the Prosecutor’s position on the meaning of the statute, the Court has clarified the role of trial court judges to consider all the relevant statutory factors and fulfills the intent of the General Assembly to weigh a committed person’s progress in treatment with the risks such an individual continues to pose to himself or the public.
On August 14, 1980, Delmar Lee Hickman brutally murdered his two parents. Mr. Hickman was indicted with two counts of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A). Subsequently, he was diagnosed with schizoid personality, borderline intellectual functioning, seizure disorder and intermittent explosive disorder, and was found not guilty by reason of insanity on August 3, 1984. Mr. Hickman was committed to a mental-health facility which has been subject to periodic court review pursuant to R.C. 2945.401 ever since.
In November of 2021, Mr. Hickman petitioned the court to be granted nonsecured status and be released to a group home in Geneva, Ohio. A continued commitment hearing was held during which evidence was presented that Mr. Hickman is currently diagnosed with mild intellectual disability/borderline intellectual functioning and a secondary diagnosis of unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder and that there were continued concerns that Mr. Hickman had “poor impulse control” and “the potential for aggressive behavior.” The trial court denied Mr. Hickman’s request to change to nonsecured status and Mr. Hickman appealed to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, and Mr. Hickman filed a discretionary appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the appeal to analyze the level of discretion a trial court has when it reviews a committed individual’s request to move to a nonsecure status under R.C. 2945.401, a case of first impression before the Court. The Court reviewed the plain language of the statute, which states that a trial court “may approve, disapprove, or modify [a] recommendation” and includes a nonexhaustive list of factors for the trial court to consider in doings so, as well as setting forth the State’s burden of proof. The Court correctly determined that the State’s evidentiary burden only related to one of the factors set forth in the statute. The Court therefore held that “a trial court must use its discretion to ‘approve, disapprove, or modify the recommendation’ [ ] after considering all relevant factors …” and that a reviewing court may only overturn a trial court’s decision on such a decision and judgment if it finds the “ultimate conclusion was unsound and unreasonable.” The Court further held that, in Mr. Hickman’s case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion “[b]ecause of Hickman’s borderline intellectual functioning and his history of severe violence and the fact that monitoring in a group home would be less rigorous than it is in his current setting.”
Throughout her tenure, Prosecutor O’Toole has worked hard to Make Ashtabula County Safe Again. Her office has encouraged individuals involved in the criminal justice system to rehabilitate themselves, but never at the cost of public safety. In this case, the office advocated for a result consistent with the law and facts of the case which has created a precedent that will be used in all requests for nonsecure status under R.C. 2945.401 throughout the State of Ohio going forward. Prosecutor O’Toole is grateful to all those involved in seeing this case to a successful conclusion.
