In re J.S.
2017 Ohio 6898
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In November 2014, five‑year‑old C.K. exhibited extreme behavioral changes after a Thanksgiving visit; medical and forensic evaluation diagnosed sexual abuse and C.K.’s underwear tested positive for amylase with a dominant DNA profile matching J.S.
- J.S., age 13 at the time, admitted in two police interviews to licking and touching C.K.’s penis and butt (sometimes with underwear on); he said the acts excited him “a little bit.”
- A juvenile complaint charged J.S. with two counts of gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)). J.S. moved for competency evaluation and the court ordered one.
- Initial evaluator found J.S. not competent but restorable; J.S. received competency‑restoration services and the trial court later found him restored to competency after hearings and testimony from the restoration therapist and evaluator.
- At adjudication, the court admitted medical and forensic testimony (nurse practitioner diagnosed sexual abuse based on interview and history), C.K. testified (found competent to testify), and detective testimony about J.S.’s admissions; the juvenile court adjudicated J.S. delinquent on two counts and committed him to DYS with community control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adjudication was supported by sufficient and not against the manifest weight of the evidence | State: forensic interview, medical diagnosis, DNA on underwear, and J.S.’s admissions prove elements of gross sexual imposition beyond a reasonable doubt | J.S.: challenges sufficiency/weight of evidence (argues evidence inadequate or not credible) | Court: Evidence was competent and credible; convictions affirmed (sufficiency and weight upheld) |
| Whether court erred in finding J.S. competent after restoration services | State: competency reports, restoration therapist testimony, and court colloquy show J.S. understood proceedings and could assist counsel | J.S.: challenges restoration finding; contends he remained incompetent | Court: Reliable, credible evidence supports restoration and competency finding; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishing manifest‑weight and sufficiency review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency standard: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d 569 (application of sufficiency standard)
- State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108 (incompetency is not merely emotional instability; defendant may be disturbed yet competent)
- State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St.3d 184 (deference to trial court observations on competency)