43
Warren appeals court overturns animal-cruelty conviction
By JUSTIN WIEr
WARREN
An Ohio appeals court has overturned the conviction of a Girard man on a count of cruelty to animals because the Girard Municipal Court judge failed to ask the prosecutor to present the evidence against the man before finding him guilty.
Police arrested John A. Giordano, 52, of North St. Clair Street, in February 2016 after a video surfaced in which he appeared to beat a dog outside his home in Girard.
The police report said Giordano kneed the dog and hit him with a closed fist.
The video ignited outrage on social media and prompted a small group of animal-rights activists to protest at Giordano’s court appearances.
Judge Jeffrey Adler of Girard Municipal Court found Giordano guilty in June 2016 after Giordano pleaded no contest to the charge. Giordano received a year’s probation and had to forfeit his dog, a Rottweiler named Hazard.
But a ruling issued by the 11th District Court of Appeals last week determined Judge Adler did not obtain an explanation of circumstances from the prosecutor before finding Giordano guilty after the no-contest plea.
Giordano argued because the trial court was not presented with an explanation of circumstances at his plea hearing, his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence.
Judge Cynthia Westcott Rice wrote, “An explanation of circumstances is required to support a no-contest plea in order to ensure that the trial court does not make a guilty finding in perfunctory fashion.”
The appellate court cited several previous rulings to argue that further proceedings against Giordano for the incident would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Constitution, which prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime.
Judge Diane V. Grendell concurred in part, but dissented with the two other judges regarding the ruling barring further proceedings.
Judge Grendell wrote the failure of the court to require an explanation of circumstances “warrants reversal for a new plea hearing rather than dismissal of the charge against the defendant outright.”