In Re A.G.
148 Ohio St. 3d 118
| Ohio | 2016Background
- In June 2012 a 15‑year‑old (A.G.) was identified by fingerprints as the assailant in an ATM‑adjacent armed coercion incident; juvenile complaint charged delinquency for acts that would be aggravated robbery and kidnapping if committed by an adult, with firearm specifications.
- A.G. admitted the allegations; the juvenile court adjudicated delinquent and committed A.G. to the Department of Youth Services (DYS) with consecutive minimum terms totaling three years (plus one year for the firearm specification), maximum until age 21.
- On appeal A.G. argued the aggravated‑robbery and kidnapping adjudications should have merged as allied offenses of similar import (double‑jeopardy claim) and raised ineffective assistance for failing to preserve that issue.
- The Eighth District held the offenses would be allied under R.C. 2941.25 for adults but concluded R.C. 2941.25 (and related Ohio cases) does not apply in juvenile proceedings and instead used the Blockburger elements test to reject merger.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the merger analysis set forth in State v. Ruff (and related Ohio merger law) applies in juvenile‑delinquency proceedings to protect against double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio merger (Ruff/Johnson analysis) applies in juvenile delinquency proceedings | A.G.: R.C. 2941.25 codifies constitutional double‑jeopardy protections; Ruff merger test applies to juveniles | State: R.C. 2941.25 is a criminal/statutory protection for convictions only and does not apply to civil juvenile proceedings; Blockburger should govern | The court held Ruff merger analysis applies to juvenile adjudications; Ohio merger principles protect juveniles from multiple commitments for allied offenses |
| Proper test for determining allied offenses in juvenile cases | A.G.: Use Ohio’s Ruff test (conduct, animus, import) | State: Use federal Blockburger elements test; juvenile courts need not follow R.C. 2941.25 | Held: Ruff — evaluate conduct, animus, and import; Blockburger disavowed for Ohio merger analysis in juvenile context |
| Whether juveniles receive the same double‑jeopardy protections as adults | A.G.: Juveniles are entitled to same protections including merger | State: Legislative scheme permits cumulative juvenile commitments; R.C. 2941.25 shows intent to exclude juveniles | Held: Breed and precedent require jeopardy attaches in adjudications; juveniles have same constitutional double‑jeopardy protection and Ohio merger law applies |
| Remedy / disposition | A.G.: Remand for application of Ruff and reconsider merger; possible relief from consecutive commitments | State: Affirm court of appeals and allow consecutive DYS terms | Held: Reversed court of appeals; remanded to apply Ruff to facts and consider remaining assignment(s) of error |
Key Cases Cited
- Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1975) (jeopardy attaches at juvenile adjudicatory hearings; juveniles entitled to double‑jeopardy protection)
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (U.S. 1969) (Fifth Amendment double‑jeopardy applies to states via Fourteenth Amendment)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (federal elements test for multiplicity; discussed and rejected for Ohio merger analysis)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (Ohio merger test requiring analysis of conduct, animus, and import)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (Ohio double‑jeopardy/merger jurisprudence; discussed in context of Rance overruling)