In re D.L.
2017 Ohio 2823
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Juvenile D.L., age 14 at alleged offense, was charged with gross sexual imposition; case combined with a separate delinquency matter for adjudication and disposition.
- Initial competency evaluation by Dr. Colin Christensen found D.L. incompetent but restorable and likely to attain competency within six months with non-residential services.
- Court ordered competency attainment services; Kimberly Genis provided nine sessions and reported that D.L. had achieved the attainment goals.
- Defense requested a new (forensic) re-evaluation before adjudication; the court held a competency hearing where Dr. Christensen (defense), Genis (state/court services), and two lay witnesses testified.
- The juvenile court found D.L. competent, he admitted to the offense, and was committed to the Ohio Department of Youth Services and classified a Tier I juvenile sex offender.
- On appeal D.L. argued the juvenile court violated due process by adjudicating him while incompetent and by not ordering a second forensic competency evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (D.L.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adjudication while incompetent violated due process | The court relied on expert foundation and attainment report showing restoration; competency finding was supported by evidence | D.L. argued a presumption of incompetence remained and the State failed to rebut it; requested additional forensic re-evaluation | Court upheld competency finding; no due process violation; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether court erred in not ordering a second forensic evaluation | The court had discretion; Genis’s attainment report, built on Dr. Christensen’s recommendations, provided sufficient evidence | D.L. argued the attainment provider was not qualified to rule on competency and a follow-up forensic exam was necessary | Court found discretionary decision to forego a follow-up evaluation was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether colloquy and plea showed lack of understanding of charges/consequences | The record (expert testimony + attainment progress) demonstrated understanding and ability to assist defense | D.L. pointed to plea colloquy showing memory/understanding problems and witnesses describing fluctuating comprehension | Court determined evidence supported that D.L. understood nature/consequences and could assist counsel |
| Standard of review for competency determinations | State: competency findings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and require some reliable, credible evidence | D.L.: urged stricter requirement (de novo or require second expert) | Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard and found sufficient reliable evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (juveniles are entitled to due process protections)
- In re Williams, 116 Ohio App.3d 237 (Ohio App. 1997) (incompetent juveniles may not be adjudicated)
- State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1986) (incompetency not synonymous with mental illness; competency focuses on understanding and assisting in defense)
- State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St.3d 184 (Ohio 2003) (appellate review of competency rulings is for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2008) (competency findings will stand if supported by some reliable, credible evidence)
- State v. Mink, 101 Ohio St.3d 350 (Ohio 2004) (deference to trial court observations on competency because it sees and hears the witnesses)
- In re Braden, 176 Ohio App.3d 616 (Ohio App. 2008) (once court finds incompetence, a presumption of incompetence arises and the state must rebut it)