## Facts

- Two misdemeanor domestic-violence and assault complaints were filed against Warren Busch based on alleged incidents involving his girlfriend, Dorothy Cordiano.
- The first alleged incident (June 14, 1994) involved Busch striking Cordiano in the face; the second (July 25, 1994) involved dragging her down stairs and burning her with a cigarette.
- Cordiano filed both complaints on July 28, 1994; Busch was charged under R.C. 2919.25(A) (domestic violence) and R.C. 2903.13(A) (assault).
- After charges were filed, Cordiano signed an affidavit stating she did not want to pursue the charges and asked police and prosecutors to stop contacting her.
- In multiple court appearances, Cordiano repeatedly testified under oath that she wanted the charges dropped; she stated she was not being coerced and did not fear continued abuse.
- The court ordered counseling before trial; Cordiano reported counseling attendance and expressed a desire to preserve the family unit.
- Over the prosecution’s objection, the trial court sua sponte dismissed the complaints.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court has discretion under Crim.R. 48(B) and inherent judicial authority to sua sponte dismiss a criminal complaint over the prosecution’s objection when the complaining witness does not want the case to proceed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal.
- The court held that a trial court has discretion to sua sponte dismiss a criminal case over the prosecution’s objection where the complaining witness does not wish the case to proceed.
- The court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion given the on-record testimony and circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Crim.R. 48(B) contemplates dismissal “over objection of the state” and requires the court to state on the record findings of fact and reasons for dismissal.
- Trial courts possess inherent authority to regulate proceedings, manage caseloads, and protect the integrity of the court’s process.
- A trial court’s sua sponte dismissal authority is not unlimited; it is reviewed for abuse of discretion and must be supported by stated findings and reasons on the record.
- In assessing dismissal, the court may weigh practical case realities and the interests of the state, the accused, and the complaining witness, including whether the prosecution substantially depends on a witness who refuses to proceed.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court held that, consistent with Crim.R. 48(B) and inherent judicial authority, a trial court may dismiss criminal charges on its own motion over the state’s objection when supported by on-record findings and reasons showing dismissal serves the interests of justice, including circumstances where the complaining witness credibly and persistently declines to proceed.


State v. Busch, 76 Ohio St. 3d 613, 669 N.E.2d 1125 (Ohio 1996)