In re D.B.
129 Ohio St. 3d 104
| Ohio | 2011Background
- D.B., age 12, was charged with nine counts of rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) for conduct with an 11-year-old, M.G., and one count with A.W., also 12, later dropped.
- Amended complaint lowered charges to include only R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) against D.B. and other counts under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) for forcible sexual conduct.
- Adjudicatory hearing began January 30, 2008; court reserved on dismissal until end of state’s case.
- State presented testimony from witnesses including A.W., M.G., and D.B.’s father; acts occurred with both alleged peers under 13.
- Court found no force but adjudicated delinquent on counts alleging under-13 rape; dispositional order placed D.B. in DYS with five-year minimum and probation.
- Fifth District affirmed constitutionality of the statute as applied, and Ohio Supreme Court granted jurisdiction to review the as-applied challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) is vague as applied to under-13 actors. | D.B. argues the statute enables arbitrary enforcement. | State contends statute serves legitimate protection with clear application. | Unconstitutional as applied due to vagueness. |
| Whether applying the statute to two peers under 13 violates equal protection. | Equal protection violated because only D.B. was charged. | Statute applies to any under-13 offender; pari"-situ" treatment not required. | Unconstitutional as applied due to discriminatory enforcement. |
| Whether the lack of force or consent considerations affects the as-applied challenge. | Consent and force are irrelevant under the statute’s plain terms. | Statute’s structure does not require force to prove rape. | Statutory rape under this provision is invalid as applied; additional elements could sustain charge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1966) (juvenile due process requirements)
- Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (due process in juvenile hearings)
- Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (U.S. 1974) (vagueness and notice concerns)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983) (vagueness doctrine and minimal guidelines)
- Reeves, 92 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1876) (statutory interpretation of enforcement power)