In re B.O.
80 N.E.3d 1085
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellant B.O., age 12, was charged in juvenile court with one count of gross sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) for sexual contact with his 7‑year‑old half‑sister (alleged oral-genital contact and manual touching).
- Appellant moved to dismiss, arguing that charging him under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) violated equal protection and due process as interpreted in In re D.B., which held statutory rape was unconstitutional as applied to sexual conduct between two children under 13 because the offense is strict liability.
- The juvenile court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning gross sexual imposition requires a mens rea (purpose) element for the sexual‑contact element and thus is not strict liability.
- After an adjudicatory hearing the juvenile court found B.O. delinquent; at disposition B.O. was ordered to serve 90 days detention and placed in custody of the Department of Youth Services for six months (with some time suspended conditionally).
- B.O. appealed solely on the ground the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) to a juvenile under 13 violates equal protection/due process under In re D.B. | B.O.: In re D.B. requires dismissal because gross sexual imposition applied to two children under 13 would effectively be strict liability and treat victim and offender alike. | State: Gross sexual imposition contains a mens rea (purpose for sexual arousal/gratification) so it is not strict liability; In re D.B. does not apply. | Court: Affirmed trial court — R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) is not strict liability; mens rea differentiates offender from victim, so no constitutional violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 104 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (held statutory rape provision unconstitutional as applied to sexual conduct between children under 13 because the statute was strict liability and raised equal protection concerns)
- State v. Dunlap, 129 Ohio St.3d 461 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (recognizes that the mens rea of purpose applies to the sexual‑contact element of gross sexual imposition)
- In re K.C., 32 N.E.3d 988 (Ohio Ct. App.) (held R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) is not strict liability and In re D.B. does not apply)
- Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (explains standards for facial vs. as‑applied constitutional challenges and burden on challenger)