CLEVELAND, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court is poised to determine whether to hear a significant case from Cuyahoga County that could influence gun rights for residents. The case arises from a ruling by the 8th District Court of Appeals, which declared a state law that bans individuals accused of violent felonies from possessing firearms unconstitutional.
In April, following a request from county prosecutors, the state’s highest court placed a hold on the appellate court’s decision. Prosecutors, along with the state’s Prosecuting Attorneys Association, have urged the Supreme Court to review the matter, highlighting the need for clarification on an important constitutional issue.
“Prompt review of the case will ensure timely and authoritative guidance on a constitutional question of broad and recurring public importance,” stated assistant county prosecutors Tasha Forchione and Kevin Filiatraut in a May filing.
Robert McCaleb, an assistant public defender, has countered that the 8th District’s ruling was sound and urged the high court to decline to hear the case. Central to the legal debate is the case of Delvonte Philpotts, a Maple Heights resident charged with weapons violations in 2018 while under indictment for sexual assault.
Philpotts faced a charge of possessing weapons under disability, applicable to individuals restricted from owning firearms, typically those with prior violent crime convictions. Initially indicted on rape charges, he later posted images on social media with a firearm, prompting prosecutor action against him for violating the weapons law while under indictment.
After the rape charges were dropped, he accepted a no contest plea to the weapons charge in 2018, resulting in a three-year probation sentence. Philpotts appealed his conviction, which eventually brought the case before the Ohio Supreme Court, resulting in a remand to the 8th District in 2022 for further examination based on recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
In June 2024, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Deborah Turner overturned Philpotts’ weapon conviction, asserting that prosecutors did not demonstrate historical precedent for banning firearm possession for those merely under indictment. The 8th District later upheld her ruling.
In response to the 8th District’s decision, a spokesperson for the county prosecutor’s office expressed concerns over public safety, calling the outcome “bizarre.” They requested a pause on the ruling to avoid inconsistencies in the enforcement of state law across different jurisdictions.
However, McCaleb and Chief Public Defender Cullen Sweeney supported the ruling. Should the Ohio Supreme Court choose to take up the case, its ruling would have ramifications extending beyond Cuyahoga County. If the court decides not to hear it, the hold on the 8th District’s ruling will be lifted, keeping the prohibition on weapon possession under disability unconstitutional only in that county.
The crux of the disagreement revolves around whether there exists a historical basis for the blanket disarmament of specific groups in America. Public defenders and the 8th District maintain that such disarmament should necessitate individualized hearings, like bond hearings.
Prosecutors assert that individuals accused of serious violent crimes were often detained without bail during the country’s founding—lesser than the burden of temporarily disarming someone like Philpotts. They have referenced historical precedents that existed before the nation was founded, suggesting that legal traditions allowed for the disarmament of groups deemed dangerous.
McCaleb contended that colonial Americans understood the importance of an individual’s right to bear arms, proposing that disarmament should only follow a conviction or proper judicial procedures.
While numerous states bar firearm possession for convicted felons, Ohio uniquely extended these restrictions in 1968 to include indicted individuals—an approach McCaleb describes as a departure from traditional practices. He highlighted that only Washington and Hawaii have similar laws.
McCaleb has expressed his belief that a decision from the court will likely come within the next month.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI and may contain inaccuracies. Any errors, retractions, or removal requests can be submitted via email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.