In re J.T.
2018 Ohio 457
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In August 2016, then-9-year-old J.T. and 7-year-old C.M. were found locked in a bathroom; J.T. was observed with an erection and C.M. was crying. A medical exam of C.M. showed a recent anal tear and a rape kit was taken.
- Deputy Wobler interviewed J.T.; J.T. admitted to "humping" C.M., acknowledged an erection, and admitted to penetrating C.M.’s anus.
- A juvenile complaint charged J.T. with one count of gross sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4).
- J.T. moved to dismiss, arguing R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to children under 13 (relying on In re D.B.). The trial court denied the motion.
- The juvenile court adjudicated J.T. delinquent and ordered probation and sex-offender treatment; J.T. appealed, raising two related constitutional challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to a child under 13 who engaged in sexual contact with another child under 13 | Relying on In re D.B., J.T. argued the statute is vague and violates due process/equal protection because both children fall within the protected class and could be offenders | The statute differs from statutory rape because gross sexual imposition requires a mens rea of "purpose" (sexual arousal/gratification), so children can be distinguished as offender vs. victim | The court held the statute is constitutional as applied: GSI requires proof of purpose, avoiding D.B. concerns; evidence supported J.T.'s adjudication |
| Whether a member of the protected class (a child under 13) can be found in violation of the statute | J.T. argued a protected-class member cannot be guilty because class membership collapses offender/victim distinction | State argued mens rea (purpose) allows distinguishing offender from victim even if both are under 13 | The court held membership in the protected class does not bar conviction where evidence shows the child acted with the requisite purpose; J.T. failed to show unconstitutionality |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 104 (2011) (held R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) unconstitutionally vague as applied to children under 13 engaging in sexual conduct with each other)
- State v. Dunlap, 129 Ohio St.3d 461 (2011) (held mens rea for sexual contact under R.C. 2907.01(B) is purpose)
- State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 (2007) (de novo review applies to statutory interpretation and constitutionality)