YOUNGSTOWN — Mahoning County Common Pleas Court Judge R. Scott Krichbaum on Friday dismissed the felony and misdemeanor charges against Jacob E. Hall, 33, in a Nov. 30 altercation at Hall’s home on North Yorkshire Boulevard in Austintown in which Hall was shot by an Austintown police officer.

An Austintown police report states that officers responded to Hall’s home about 10:30 p.m. and found Hall standing outside, making “suicidal and homicidal threats.” The report states that Hall eventually fired multiple shots. In response, an officer shot Hall.

The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation carried out an officer-involved shooting investigation and turned over its investigation to prosecutors Feb.9. Hall was indicted Dec. 11 on one count of discharging a firearm at or into a habitation with a firearm specification, a high-level felony; and two counts of aggravated menacing, each a first-degree misdemeanor.

Krichbaum’s dismissal entry states that the Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office requested the dismissal in a “lengthy attempt to explain the State’s failure to provide timely (pretrial evidence) in this case,” which was set for trial on Monday.

On Thursday, a prosecutor filing asked for the dismissal without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled later, and explained that the incident involved Hall threatening members of his family, then leaving for a time and later returning to his home.

“He stood on the front porch, armed, and fired a number of (shots) into the residence” with another male inside the home, the filing by Mahoning County Prosecutor Lynn Maro and Assistant Prosecutor Mark Carfolo states.

Hall “refused to disarm; and an Austintown police officer, believing that his life and the life of others was in danger, fired several (shots) at the defendant, striking (him). He was thereafter disarmed and emergency medical aid was rendered pending arrival of first responders.” Hall was taken to the hospital and then to the county jail.

Because of the incident being a shooting by police, three separate investigations took place — a criminal investigation, an internal affairs investigation by the Austintown Police Department and a use-of-force investigation by the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the prosecution filing states. BCI is a division of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.

“Much of the evidence that would have ordinarily been gathered, analyzed and used in a criminal prosecution was – because this was an officer involved critical incident – seized by BCI,” the filing adds.

“While it would have been preferable to wait to present the matter to the grand jury until the BCI (officer-involved critical incident) was completed, the fact that the defendant was in custody weighed against that,” the filing states. Hall was guaranteed a trial within deadlines in Ohio law, so the matter was presented to a grand jury Dec. 11, the filing states. The results of the BCI investigation, which numbered over 2,500 pages, was delivered to prosecutors Feb. 23.

Prosecutors were required under criminal rules and case law to turn over evidence to the defense from the BCI report. But as of last Thursday, prosecutors still could not guarantee that all evidence in the custody of the prosecutor’s office had been turned over to the defense, the prosecutor filing states.

Prosecutors asked Krichbaum March 17 for more time to disclose evidence to the defense, citing the delay in getting evidence from BCI. Prosecutors stated in their Thursday filing that the court overruled the motion.

In Thursday’s filing, prosecutors stated that they “in good faith attempted to review the results of the (BCI investigation) and disclose matters to the defense which are pertinent to the defense and for which disclosure is mandated.” But “sometimes even in the exercise of good faith, a matter cannot be timely accomplished, and that is what occurred here.”

The filing added that “the court has indicated it will not (allow) the state to use items which were not disclosed at least seven days before trial” and overruled the prosecution’s request.

Prosecutors “therefore seek leave to dismiss this case,” the prosecution filing Thursday stated. “It will, at a time when it can assure this court and the defendant that it can fully and timely comply with all disclosure requirements, present the matter to a grand jury,” it adds.

Krichbaum’s dismissal entry, meanwhile, recited the history of the case going back to Hall’s Dec. 16, 2025, arraignment and Krichbaum’s Dec. 16, 2025 order requiring pretrial evidence to be turned over to the defense within three days. The order set the trial for Feb. 23. Pretrial and trial dates were later pushed back and later moved again to March 2 and March 9, respectively.

Later the trial date was set for March 23, after “counsel” indicated that they would be “prepared for trial,” the judge’s order states.

All motions and demands were to be filed by March 13, with a pretrial set for March 18, the Krichbaum ruling states. But on March 17, prosecutors filed its motion asking to submit pretrial evidence to the defense less than 7 days before trial, claiming that “the files for the investigation were not released to [prosecutors] until Feb. 23, 2026.”

Krichbaum’s ruling also states that “The court also considered several other motions filed by the defense. The state’s motion to continue initially argued clerical issues and errors, which were unfounded.”

The Krichbaum ruling states that he ordered as far back as Dec. 22 that any issues with pretrial evidence should be brought to his immediate attention.

Krichbaum stated in the entry that “the obligations imposed upon a court by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Cannon 2” and other rules that a defendant is presumed to be innocent “and therefore entitled to expeditious disposition of a case pending against him. This case was continued over and over again.”

When Ohio Attorney General’s Office Press Secretary Steve Irwin was asked Monday whether the BCI investigation into the Hall matter could be released to the Vindicator, he referred the request to the Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office.

Maro said later that she could give access to the BCI investigative report because Hall’s case is an “on-going investigation.”

She also issued a press release stating that her office “would like to assure the public her office intends to pursue charges and re-indict Jacob E. Hall.” Hall was released from the jail on bond Dec. 24.

The full BCI report was released to the prosecutor’s office in February, “just weeks before trial was to begin.”