In re K.A., 2013 Ohio 2997

Juvenile K.A., age 12, admitted to gross sexual imposition for sexual contact with his 5‑year‑old cousin; incident involved K.A. on top of victim with pants down and bruising on victim.
Complaint filed July 28, 2011; K.A. also admitted to two unrelated disorderly‑conduct counts.
Juvenile court found returning K.A. home contrary to his welfare and placed him in a residential treatment facility with aftercare supervision on completion.
After assaults on staff at the facility, K.A. was moved to juvenile detention for a minimum of six months and ordered to complete sex‑offender treatment before release.
K.A. appealed, raising (1) equal protection, (2) due process (vagueness), and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise those constitutional challenges to R.C. 2907.05(A)(4).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) violates equal protection when applied to a child offender under 13 who molests another child under 13	K.A.: statute treats similarly situated children inconsistently because both parties are under 13	State: mens rea requirement (purpose) separates offender from victim; only the actor with sexual purpose is culpable	Rejected — no equal protection violation; mens rea differentiates offender from victim
Whether R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to under‑13 consensual/peer conduct	K.A.: statute fails to give fair notice and encourages arbitrary enforcement when both parties are under 13 (relying on In re D.B.)	State: gross sexual imposition requires purposeful sexual contact (mens rea), so statute gives adequate notice and limits enforcement	Rejected — not impermissibly vague; mens rea of purpose prevents arbitrariness
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to raise equal protection and vagueness objections	K.A.: counsel should have objected on constitutional grounds	State: counsel’s performance was not prejudicial because the constitutional claims lacked merit	Rejected — no ineffective assistance because objections would not have succeeded

In re D.B., 950 N.E.2d 528 (Ohio 2011) (held statutory rape provision void as applied to consensual sexual conduct between children under 13 because strict‑liability offense made offender/victim distinction collapse)
State v. Dunlap, 953 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2011) (held mens rea for "sexual contact" under R.C. 2907.01(B) is purpose)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (established two‑part ineffective‑assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989) (adopted Strickland standard for Ohio courts)