Charges rejected by Judge Costine
In less than a week of affidavit charges filed in Western Division Court on May 14, Judge Eric Costine rejected the charges on May 20.
The charges were filed by Flushing resident Brent Gay against Union Local Football Coach Vaughn Butler, a Barnesville police officer and a Belmont County Sheriff’s following an incident that occurred during halftime of the Union Local-Barnesville football game on October 25, 2024.
In his written decision, Costine noted “ORC§2935.09 directs this court to examine the affidavit and to determine if a complaint should be filed by the prosecuting attorney”.
Costine further stated, “A part of this analysis comes with the knowledge that the prosecutor’s office has already reviewed this matter, and their analysis has resulted in no charges being filed but issuing a letter at least to Mr. Gay about their analysis. It is also acknowledged that in reviewing Mr. Gay’s affidavit and the accompanying two affidavits this court may have less information than was provided to the prosecutor’s office with which to make this court’s review and analysis as to whether charges should be filed.
“Based on this court’s analysis the court finds that no complaint should be filed against Tippie or Grant. The affidavit urges that charges be filed based upon Grant saying to Tippie “can’t we do this later”. Of course, Tippie could have said no and that he wanted to investigate the allegation right then and there, but he also had the discretion to wait until another time to investigate. This discretion was probably very smart considering that Tippie is a Barnesville Police Officer investigating a Union Local coach at halftime when UL is down 41-0 between intense rivals. It is quite obvious that something was turned into the prosecutor’s office because a letter was generated from that office regarding this event.
“Gay admittedly initiated this confrontation. He states in his affidavit that he believed he was making a harmless quip to a friend. It is quite obvious that Butler did not see it that way. The court does not see it as such either. The comment was likely an accusation that Butler had failed to properly prepare himself and his team for the contest with their rival team. Gay admittedly made this confrontation during the game at halftime. It is axiomatic to say that had this confrontation not been made, no incident would have occurred.
“By injecting himself into the coaching staff at the game Gay singlehandedly created the atmosphere for which he now complains and requests this court to permit criminal charges to be filed and to have Butler, and Tippie and Grant arrested and taken to jail. By initiating this contact Gay could be charged with Inciting Violence (ORC §2917.01(A)(1) or (2) a first-degree misdemeanor, as well as Disorderly Conduct ORC §2917.11. This is exactly why charges are brought in the name of the State and not by victims. Yes, the law provides an avenue for private citizens to file an affidavit to initiate criminal charges, but this is an extraordinary remedy in the law. Necessary, but extraordinary.
“This court acknowledges its ability to second guess the prosecutor’s office in its handling of this matter; however, this may be the only incident that Gay has been involved in like this, but other similar cases (at sporting events) occur much more frequently than they should. Overzealous fans verbally berating athletes, coaching staff and officials pervades all sports starting at little league events and up through all levels of sports.
“Here, the prosecutor’s office has declined to prosecute anyone, when in the court’s mind they could have elected to prosecute both Butler and Gay.
“Prosecutors and courts frequently deal with such cross-filings and frankly, in many (not all) charges ultimately get dismissed. A prosecutor’s ethical goal is to seek justice, not convictions. In this matter perhaps justice is best served sweeping the proverbial dirt under the rug. As such this court declines to instruct the prosecutor’s office to contemplate any charges being filed in this matter. The prosecutor’s discretion here has been sound.
Judge Costine’s decision is posted online on the court’s website.
The following day, the Chandra Law firm of Cleveland who represents Gay in the matter, published a response refuting Costine’s ruling noting “given the errors in the Court’s opinion, we are studying Mr. Gay’s appellate options”.
The law firm’s statement may be read online here.
Barnesville Area News Needs Your Support!
We're dedicated to providing coverage of the local happenings in Barnesville and the neighboring communities.
As a non-profit entity, we rely on the donations of readers like you.
Make a donation today and you'll be helping keep local news alive in the Barnesville area.