Ohio's highest court has drawn a sharp line on victims' rights in traffic cases, ruling that people hurt in low-level car crashes may not have a constitutional right to be heard in criminal court when the only proceeding is a minor traffic charge. The dispute traces back to a June 2022 collision in Cleveland, where M. Anthony Douglas says he was struck and the other driver, Iheoma Njoku, was cited for failure to yield. When the city later dismissed the traffic case in 2025 without telling Douglas, he lost the chance to seek criminal restitution through the court system.
As detailed in coverage of the traffic-court showdown, the Ohio Supreme Court took up the dispute after the Eighth District Court of Appeals had interpreted Marsy’s Law more broadly. The high court ultimately concluded that Marsy’s Law, the 2018 state constitutional amendment that gives crime victims the right to be present and heard at criminal proceedings, does not extend to cases where the only charge is a minor traffic violation.
What the court said
Justice Anita Laster Mays, writing for the court, stressed that a would-be victim's opinion about what charges should have been filed cannot transform a traffic ticket into a criminal case. "Appellant’s belief of what charges should have or could have been brought against Njoku does not dictate whether he is a ‘victim’ under Marsy’s Law," the opinion states, according to the court’s written explanation.
How Ohio law draws the line
Under Ohio law, a "criminal offense" is defined as an act punishable by incarceration and not eligible to be handled by the traffic violations bureau. That distinction often keeps low-level crash citations outside the reach of Marsy’s Law. The state's sentencing rules also limit when criminal restitution may be imposed, generally excluding offenses that can be processed by the traffic violations bureau, which in practice pushes many injured people toward civil court to recover medical bills and lost wages. See Justia for the statutory framework.
What victims can do
The practical result is that people injured in minor crashes may have to file civil lawsuits to recoup their losses rather than rely on criminal restitution. Douglas's attorney, Thomas Ryan, told an interview with Douglas’s attorney that Douglas had hoped to collect criminal restitution from Njoku but will now have to pursue a civil claim to recover the money he lost because of the accident.
Legal implications
The ruling narrows the reach of Marsy’s Law in Ohio and may reduce the number of victims who can be present and heard at criminal proceedings that stem from traffic incidents. It also makes clear that formal legal definitions and the traffic violations bureau process, not an injured person's expectations about what charges ought to be filed, control when Marsy’s Law protections and criminal restitution are available.
