Justice Facility Dogs in Ohio
These agencies have professional handlers working with certified facility dogs in Ohio.
Athens County Child Advocacy Center, Athens (CCI)
Fairfield County Child Advocacy Center, Lancaster (CCI)
Lake County Domestic Relations Court, Painesville (CCI)
Mayerson Center for Safe & Healthy Children, Cincinnati (CCI)
Portage County Sheriff’s Office, Ravenna (CCI)
Ross County Child Advocacy Center, Chillicothe (CCI)
Seneca County Prosecutor’s Office, Tiffin (CCI)
Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Akron (Circle Tail)
Summit County Prosecutor’s Office, Akron (CCI)
Tuscarawas County Family & Children First, New Philadelphia (CCI)
Facility dog Ottimo, trained by Canine Companions, and handler Laura Romans
Appellate Court Decisions
State v. Jacobs (2015)
2015 WL 6180908 (2015)
Full text of the opinion here.
Ohio Court of Appeals, October 21, 2015.
Motion for leave to file delayed appeal denied by Ohio Supreme Court, March 9, 2016.
Nature of case:
Michael Jacobs was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct and corrupting another with drugs. The victim was between 11 and 15 years old at the time of the crimes. At the time of trial, she was 17 years old.
Procedure in the trial court:
The trial prosecutor asked the judge to allow the dog to sit at the victim’s feet while she testified. The prosecutor told the judge that when the victim saw the dog, she “bonded with him immediately.” She had requested that the dog be present. The victim testified that the dog’s presence made her feel “more comfortable.” There was evidence that she suffered from psychological ailments relating to her sexual abuse diagnosis. The record also showed that the dog was trained and had previously been used in a variety of trials.
Jury Instructions:
The Court of Appeals’ opinion does not mention any jury instructions that were given on this subject.
Appellate decision:
Ohio Rule of Evidence 611(A) allows trial judges to “exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence.” (This is similar to Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a).) Under that rule, “special accommodations” can be allowed for child victims of sexual abuse.
Three principles guide the application of these standards. “First, trial courts are in the best position to determine how to control trial proceedings, especially the mode of interrogating witnesses. Second, in light of the trial courts’ position and their discretion, it is not erroneous for them to approve a variety of special allowances for child victims of sexual abuse. And third, these special allowances may include a companion dog during the child victim’s testimony under certain circumstances.” In light of the information provided to the trial court, its decision was not an abuse of discretion.
The defendant argued that the victim was not entitled to special accommodations because she was 17 years old at the time of trial. The court rejected this argument. There is no specific cut-off age for the use of special procedures on behalf of alleged sexual abuse victims.
State v. Hasenyager (2016)
Ohio Court of Appeals Ninth District Court
Full text of the opinion here.
Defendant objected to facility dog accompanying the child to witness stand while she testified against the defendant because the presence of the facility dog during her testimony vilified his trial counsel and unfairly bolstered the witnesses credibility in the eyes of the jury.
Appellate Decision
The Ninth District Court of Appeals disagreed finding that: applying “Evid.R. 611(A) in the context of a criminal prosecution for alleged sexual abuse of a minor child, courts should “recognize that the protection of child victims of sexual abuse forms an important public policy goal in this state and across the nation.” State v. Eastham, 39 Ohio St.3d 307, 310 (1988). “Due to this recognition, ‘[s]pecial accommodations * * * are often allowed for child victims of sexual abuse to minimize the emotional trauma and stress of having to testify in a courtroom full of strangers, along with the accused.’” State v. Jacobs, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27545, 2015-Ohio-4353, ¶ 21, quoting State v. Gutierrez, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5– 10–14, 2011–Ohio–3126, ¶ 100; see also Holder, All Dogs Go to Court: The Impact of Court Facility Dogs as Comfort for Child Witnesses on a Defendant’s Right to a Fair Trial, 50 Hous.L.Rev. 1155, 1158 (2013) (“Children experience unique challenges on the witness stand, and in response, they receive special accommodations.”).
ADI Accredited Organizations
The following organizations place facility dogs in the state of Ohio. Please visit their websites to find out more about each organization.
ADW – Assistance Dogs of the West