In re A.M., 2021 Ohio 432

12-year-old A.M. was charged in juvenile court with gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)) and importuning based on alleged sexual contact with a 6‑year‑old neighbor. The offenses are third‑degree felonies if committed by an adult.
On June 19, 2018 Deputy White interviewed A.M. at the sheriff’s office; A.M.’s parents drove him there, remained in the room during the 15–20 minute interview, and A.M.’s father signed an interrogation/waiver form.
A.M. moved to suppress his statements, arguing he was in custody and did not validly waive Miranda rights; the magistrate denied suppression and the trial court overruled A.M.’s motion to set aside that decision.
A.M. later entered no contest pleas and was adjudicated delinquent; the court placed him on 18 months community control (including sex‑offender treatment), with suspended DYS commitment and detention terms.
On appeal A.M. raised (1) a vagueness/equal‑protection challenge to R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) as applied to an offender under 13 who is in the protected class, and (2) a challenge to denial of his motion to suppress (Miranda/custody). The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) is unconstitutionally vague or violates equal protection when applied to an offender under 13 who is also a member of the protected class	A.M.: statute is vague/as‑applied where both parties are under 13 (like In re D.B.), producing arbitrary enforcement and unequal treatment	State: GSI requires a mens rea (purpose to arouse/gratify) unlike strict‑liability statutory rape, so offender/victim can be differentiated and D.B. does not control	Court: Rejected A.M.’s claim; mens rea in R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) distinguishes it from R.C. 2907.02 and D.B. does not render the statute unconstitutional as applied here
Whether A.M.’s statements should have been suppressed because the interview was custodial and Miranda warnings were not validly waived	A.M.: he was not free to leave, felt compelled by parents, was effectively in custody and did not knowingly/voluntarily waive rights	State: A.M. was brought by parents with their consent, both parents stayed, Deputy White told A.M. he was not under arrest, interview was brief and casual, and A.M. left with parents	Court: Denial of suppression affirmed; objective factors show noncustodial interview (parents present, told not under arrest, no restraints, released after interview)

In re D.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 104 (Ohio 2011) (held statutory rape provision vague as‑applied where both participants under 13)
State v. Dunlap, 129 Ohio St.3d 461 (Ohio 2011) (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) requires mens rea of purpose for sexual contact)
In re D.S., 152 Ohio St.3d 109 (Ohio 2017) (Supreme Court declined to decide constitutionality of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) under D.B.)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (defines custodial interrogation requiring warnings)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (U.S. 2011) (juvenile age may be relevant to custody analysis)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (U.S. 2012) (factors for custodial interrogation analysis)