A trial judge could prohibit a Geauga County woman from using drugs or alcohol and from entering bars as part of her sentence for misdemeanor theft, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

A unanimous Supreme Court reversed an Eleventh District Court of Appeals decision, which found the trial court could not impose the restriction on Susan Ballish because the use of drugs or alcohol played no role in her theft offense.

Writing for the Court, Justice Daniel R. Hawkins explained that Ohio criminal sentencing law expressly allows drug-and-alcohol-use monitoring as a condition on an offender placed on community control. Since Ballish had been before the same court within 18 months on an alcohol-related offense, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when adding the drug and alcohol restrictions, he stated.

Justice Hawkins wrote that the Eleventh District relied on what has become known as the “Jones test” for determining whether conditions imposed on offenders are appropriate. He noted the General Assembly has significantly changed sentencing for misdemeanor crimes since Jones was decided in 1990. He explained today’s ruling did not eliminate the Jones test but limits its use when reviewing terms of community control.

Offender Challenges Restrictions
In November 2023, Ballish pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor theft. As part of her sentence, the trial court imposed one year of community control, also referred to as “probation.” The trial court imposed several conditions, including a ban from bars and required drug and alcohol screening.

Ballish objected to the drug and alcohol conditions, arguing that under Jones, a condition of probation not “reasonably related” to the committed offense is prohibited. The trial court rejected the objection, reasoning that within the prior 18 months, Ballish had been on probation after being convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).

Ballish appealed to the Eleventh District, arguing there was no connection between her theft conviction and the use of drugs or alcohol.

The Eleventh District stated it was applying the three-part Jones test set by the Supreme Court. Under the Jones test, a sentencing court must consider whether a probation condition is reasonably related to rehabilitating the offender, has some relationship to the crime of which the offender committed, and is related to “conduct which is criminal or reasonably related to future criminality and serves” to meet the goals of probation. The Jones test states that conditions cannot be “overly broad so as to unnecessarily impinge upon the probationer’s liberty.”

The Eleventh District found the restriction failed the second part, because nothing in the record indicated drugs or alcohol contributed to the theft offense.

The Geauga County Prosecutor’s Office appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Changes in Sentencing Laws
Justice Hawkins explained when the Jones case was decided in 1990, Ohio’s criminal sentencing statutes allowed probation conditions that were in “the interests of justice, rehabilitating the offender, and insuring his good behavior.” The Court recognized that a sentencing court’s discretion is not limitless and developed the three-part test to ensure any conditions were reasonably related to the crimes, the opinion stated.

In 2004, the General Assembly overhauled misdemeanor sentencing laws. The law now permits a sentencing court to impose one or more sanctions that are expressly authorized by statute, as well as “any other conditions of release under a community control sanction that the court considers appropriate.”

The opinion noted that R.C. 2929.26 through R.C. 2929.28 list sanctions a court can impose, including drug and alcohol use monitoring. Echoing the Jones decision, the law states that sanctions should be in the interest of doing justice, rehabilitating the offender, and ensuring the offender’s good behavior.”

The General Assembly has also limited the discretion for misdemeanor sentencing in other ways, the opinion stated. However, Ohio courts, including the Supreme Court, have continued to apply the Jones test when evaluating sentences. The Court noted that it used the test in challenges to community control sanctions that were not specifically authorized by statute, such as a trial court’s requirement that a defendant “make all reasonable efforts to avoid impregnating a woman.”

However, when a condition is expressly authorized by law, the Jones test should no longer be used, the Court ruled. Instead, a condition should be reviewed under an “abuse of discretion” standard. The opinion stated a trial court abuses its discretion if its actions were “unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.”

Because drug and alcohol monitoring is a condition stated in the law, and Ballish had a criminal history involving a DUI, the trial court’s decision to impose monitoring and the bar restrictions was not an abuse of discretion, the opinion stated. The Court reimposed the conditions on Ballish.

The opinion noted that, because trial courts can continue to impose sanctions not specified in state law, the Jones test can still be used to determine whether those sanctions were properly imposed.

2024-0899. State v. Ballish, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-503.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.