In re R.A.H.
2016 Ohio 8301
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Juvenile R.A.H. was adjudicated delinquent on two rape counts: rape of a child under 13 and rape with force; facts showed he held the 12‑year‑old victim’s hands above her head while digitally penetrating her.
- Defense counsel did not object at trial to the court treating the counts separately, so appellate review is for plain error.
- The Eighth District originally held the merger analysis did not apply to juvenile proceedings, but the Ohio Supreme Court reversed and remanded, directing the court to apply In re A.G. and the allied‑offenses/merger framework.
- The court assessed merger under the Ruff allied‑offenses test (dissimilar import, separate time, separate animus).
- The court found no separate harm, the acts occurred at the same time, and there was a single animus (restraint was integral to committing the rape), so the two rape counts were allied offenses that should have merged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the allied‑offenses (merger) analysis apply in juvenile delinquency proceedings to protect against double jeopardy? | R.A.H.: merger applies to juvenile proceedings. | State: historically this court treated merger as inapplicable to juveniles (but Supreme Court reversed). | Court applied merger per Ohio Supreme Court remand (In re A.G.) and proceeded with allied‑offenses analysis. |
| Do the two rape counts (child under 13; use of force) constitute allied offenses of similar import? | R.A.H.: counts arose from a single act/incident and should merge. | State: prosecuted as separate offenses (force and statutory element). | Held: offenses are allied—no separate harm, same time, same animus—should have merged. |
| What standard of review applies given defense counsel’s failure to object to nonmerger at trial? | R.A.H.: asks reversal notwithstanding forfeiture. | State: argues forfeiture limits review. | Held: Review limited to plain error; court found plain error that affected the outcome and reversed. |
| Remedy following finding of nonmerged allied offenses? | R.A.H.: vacate one adjudication/merge counts. | State: (implicit) seek to uphold convictions. | Held: Judgment reversed and case remanded to juvenile court for proceedings consistent with merger (i.e., avoid multiple adjudications for allied offense). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (articulating the allied‑offenses/merger test: dissimilar import, separate conduct, or separate animus)
- State v. Rodgers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (2015) (discussing forfeiture and plain‑error review under Crim.R. 52(B))