In Re D.S.
146 Ohio St. 3d 182
| Ohio | 2016Background
- D.S., a juvenile, faced two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of public indecency, offenses alleged to have occurred when he was 13–14.
- The disposition deferred classification as a juvenile sex offender while DYS treatment continued; later, at release, a classification hearing was held.
- The juvenile court determined D.S. was at least 14 at the time of some offenses and classified him as a Tier II juvenile sex offender.
- D.S. challenged the age-determination timing, double jeopardy, and due-process implications of ongoing registration beyond youth age.
- The Fifth District and then the Ohio Supreme Court held that age eligibility can be decided before or during classification, and that deferred classification upon release does not violate double jeopardy or due process.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s judgments, concluding the scheme preserves rehabilitation and includes safeguards and review opportunities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timing of age-eligibility finding for registration | D.S. contends age must be determined at disposition | State argues age eligibility can be determined at deferred classification | Age eligibility may be determined before or during classification |
| Double jeopardy with deferred classification | D.S. argues classification after release unjustly extends punishment | State contends no finality interest due to deferred notice and release-based hearing | Deferred classification upon release does not violate double jeopardy |
| Due process of lifelong registration beyond age 21 | Registration requirements past age 21 are punitive and violate due process | Registration is part of a rehabilitative framework with review and modification | Ongoing juvenile-offender-registrant status with review provisions satisfies due process |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 140 Ohio St.3d 203 (2014-Ohio-3155) (permissible classification hearing at disposition or on release)
- State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350 (2012-Ohio-5636) (reopening judgments for sex-offender classification; notice at sentencing differs)
- In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 (2012-Ohio-1446) (automatic lifetime registration violates due process; need for judicial discretion)
- State v. D.H., 120 Ohio St.3d 540 (2009-Ohio-9) (blended sentence; discretion and adjudicative protections)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (due process and rehabilitative focus for juveniles)
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011-Ohio-3374) (registration process is punitive post-Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10)