In re L.M.
2017 Ohio 8067
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile L.M. was adjudicated delinquent on multiple counts: aggravated arson (admitted at plea), ten counts of rape, five counts of kidnapping, and one count of aggravated menacing (tried and found delinquent).
- At the arson plea hearing the court used L.M.’s sister informally as an interpreter; she warned L.M. did not fully understand the proceedings and L.M. is hard of hearing in one ear. No qualified interpreter was provided at that hearing.
- After adjudication on the sexual-offense counts, the trial court ordered a sexual-offender assessment and directed that L.M. submit to a polygraph prior to disposition if he continued to deny the offenses; Mokita Center later reported L.M. refused the polygraph on counsel’s advice.
- At disposition the court stayed three DYS commitments and ordered residential sex-offender treatment; this court previously dismissed an appeal for lack of a final order and remanded for dispositions on remaining counts.
- On remand the juvenile court reimposed dispositions; this appeal followed challenging the polygraph order, counsel performance on an in-court identification, merger of kidnapping and rape counts, and the lack of an interpreter at the arson plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (L.M.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Polygraph order pre-disposition | Court may order polygraph for therapeutic/assessment reasons | Order violated Fifth Amendment and In Re D.S. controlling; polygraph cannot compel incriminating statements | Trial court erred; polygraph order unconstitutional here; remand for de novo resentencing without considering polygraph results |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to in-court ID | Redirect identification was permissible; no abuse of discretion | Counsel deficient for not objecting to in-court ID | No prejudice shown; claim overruled |
| Merger of kidnapping and rape counts | Not expressly argued on appeal | Kidnapping counts should merge with associated rape counts to avoid double jeopardy | Moot given polygraph error remand, but trial court on remand must address merger under Ruff/A.G. framework |
| Failure to provide qualified interpreter at plea | Court relied on sister as ad hoc interpreter and proceeded | Denial of statutory/ADA/Evid.R. right to interpreter; sister warned he didn’t understand plea colloquy | Court abused discretion; plea and arson adjudication vacated; require compliance with interpreter statutes on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.S., 111 Ohio St.3d 361 (2006) (polygraph may not be compelled; requires particularized therapeutic need before ordering in juvenile context)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- State v. Smith, 89 Ohio St.3d 323 (2000) (application of Strickland in Ohio)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for counsel performance)
- State v. White, 82 Ohio St.3d 16 (1998) (prejudice requirement under ineffective assistance analysis)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (merger analysis framework for allied offenses)
- In re A.G., 148 Ohio St.3d 118 (2016) (Ruff merger analysis applies in juvenile delinquency proceedings)
- State v. Wilson, 30 Ohio St.2d 199 (1972) (trial court discretion over redirect examination)