In re M.M.
987 N.E.2d 652
Ohio2013Background
- Juvenile M.M. faced seven delinquency complaints alleging acts constituting rape and gross sexual imposition with victims aged 2–12.
- Magistrate pretrial ruled three witnesses competent but held C.R. not competent; declined to admit Evid.R. 807 statements.
- State did not pursue Juv.R. 22(F) interlocutory appeal or Crim.R. 12(K) remedy; case proceeded to trial.
- Trial court ultimately dismissed all counts after ruling excluding out-of-court statements; state sought discretionary appeal under R.C. 2945.67(A).
- Eighth District dismissed the discretionary appeal as improvidently granted; state sought Supreme Court review.
- Supreme Court held the state may not pursue discretionary appeal in juvenile cases when it did not take an appeal as of right and must comply with Juv.R. 22(F).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state may appeal discretionary under 2945.67(A) after not pursuing right appeal | State relies on Bistricky for discretionary review | State has no right to discretionary review if not timely pursuing as-of-right appeal | State cannot pursue discretionary appeal; must use as-of-right appeal or lose jurisdiction |
| Effect of Juv.R. 22(F) on the state's right to appeal | Procedural rules require interlocutory appeal with certification | State failed to meet seven-day filing and certification requirements | State failed to follow Juv.R. 22(F); no appeal jurisdiction |
| Role of Bistricky vs Arnett/Keeton lineage in juvenile appeals | State argues discretionary review under 'any other decision' | Statute controls; cannot conflate with as-of-right clause | Bistricky does not revive a discretionary right when state fails to perfect right appeal; control lies with statute |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bistricky, 51 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (recognizes discretionary review of evidentiary rulings in acquittal cases under 2945.67(A))
- State v. Arnett, 22 Ohio St.3d 186 (1986) (notes broad discretionary review in acquittal context (dissent relied on))
- Keeton, 18 Ohio St.3d 379 (1985) (permitted discretionary review of evidentiary rulings under 2945.67(A))
- Wallace, 43 Ohio St.2d 1 (1975) (requires leave-to-appeal as a condition precedent; governs procedure)
- State v. Davidson, 17 Ohio St.3d 132 (1985) (found the right to appeal as of right rests in statute)
- In re A.J.S., 120 Ohio St.3d 185 (2008) (interprets scope of appellate rights in juvenile context)
- Charvat v. Frye, 114 Ohio St.3d 76 (2007) (statutory construction governs appellate rights)