In a recent ruling, the Ohio Court of Claims denied crime compensation to Devonte Kenard Simpson, who was shot in Cleveland on May 24, 2025. The court found that Simpson failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove he was a victim of criminally injurious conduct. This decision highlights the challenges faced by victims seeking compensation when evidence is lacking.
The case, titled In re Simpson, was filed under docket number 2025-00964VI. The court's ruling, issued by Judge Lisa L. Sadler, comes after Simpson appealed a decision made by the Ohio Attorney General's office, which had previously denied his application for compensation.
Simpson's situation arose from an incident where he was shot but could not provide clear details about the circumstances surrounding the event. The Attorney General's office denied his application, stating that he did not demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that he was a victim of a crime. This lack of clarity regarding the shooting's location and circumstances led to the denial of his claim.
Background
The dispute began when Devonte Kenard Simpson applied for victims of crime compensation after being shot in Cleveland. The Attorney General's office reviewed the application and concluded that Simpson's statements to law enforcement were inconsistent. They noted that he initially claimed he did not know where he was shot, later suggesting it was at a local bar, Tailgate Bar and Grille.
Detective Brittany Vajusi, who investigated the incident, testified that she found no evidence supporting Simpson's claim that he was shot at the bar. The bar's management was uncooperative, and records showed it was not open at the time of the shooting. Simpson's conflicting statements and the lack of corroborating evidence led the Attorney General to deny his application.
Simpson appealed the Attorney General's decision, arguing that he qualified as a victim since there was no indication that he shot himself. However, he did not testify during the hearing, which limited the evidence available to support his claim.
The Ruling
The court ruled to affirm the Attorney General's decision, agreeing with the magistrate's recommendation that Simpson failed to prove he was a victim of criminally injurious conduct. The court stated, "The magistrate found that applicant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was a victim of criminally injurious conduct."
Judge Sadler emphasized that Simpson's medical records only indicated that he was shot but did not provide evidence of the circumstances surrounding the shooting. The court noted that Simpson's account was uncorroborated, and his statements alone were insufficient to meet the burden of proof required for compensation.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for victims of crime in Ohio. It underscores the importance of providing clear and corroborated evidence when applying for compensation. Victims must demonstrate that they were indeed victims of criminally injurious conduct, as defined by Ohio law.
The decision may also serve as a precedent for future cases where applicants fail to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. It highlights the necessity for victims to have a solid foundation of evidence, including reliable witness statements and corroborative documentation, to succeed in their applications for compensation.
What's Next
Simpson's case could potentially be appealed, although the court's ruling affirms the Attorney General's decision. There are no related cases pending at this time, but the outcome may influence how similar cases are handled in the future.