In re D.R.
2012 Ohio 5341
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Delinquency proceeding against D.R., age 11, for two counts of statutory rape involving a 4-year-old victim, A.S.
- Complaint filed May 26, 2011; alleged conduct on April 6, 2011, under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b).
- Juvenile court dismissed the complaint after applying In re D.B., concluding the statute is unconstitutional as applied when both parties are under 13.
- State timely objected to the magistrate’s dismissal under Juv.R. 40; objected specifically to interpretation of In re D.B.
- Appellate review is de novo to determine the correctness of the trial court’s application of In re D.B.; issue preserved procedurally.
- Holding: statute remains valid as applied to this case; dismissal affirmed; both parties under 13 but different reasoning limited to this factual context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the state’s Juv.R. 40 objection preserved for appeal? | D.R. argues objection was general, not sufficiently specific. | D.R. contends objection was specific to legal interpretation of In re D.B. | Objection was specific enough; issue preserved for review. |
| Did the Juvenile Court misapply In re D.B. to this case? | State argues In re D.B. controls; the facts show unequal ages but still within statutory framework. | Court misapplied D.B.; statutory rape unconstitutional as applied to 11-year-old with 4-year-old co-participant. | Juvenile Court did not misapply In re D.B.; dismissal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 104, 2011-Ohio-2671, 950 N.E.2d 528 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2011) (unconstitutional as applied to a child under 13 who engages with another under 13)
- In re DePaul v. Phillips, 2005-Ohio-6784 (Ohio 7th Dist., 2005) (objections must be specific to preserve issues raised; general objections waive arguments)
- State v. Saxon, ? (Ohio 9th Dist.) (2010s) (de novo standard of review for appellate review of juvenile rulings)