In re T.A.
2012 Ohio 3174
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Delinquency complaint filed against T.A., a 10½-year-old, alleging acts that would be two counts of rape if an adult.
- The State amended Count I to Gross Sexual Imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)) in exchange for T.A.’s admission and dismissed Count II.
- The Juvenile Court accepted the admission and ordered pre-sentence investigation and sex offender assessment.
- Dispositional order committed T.A. to DYS for an indefinite term with minimum one year, later suspended, and placed him on community control.
- T.A. later moved, under Civ.R. 60(B), to vacate the disposition, arguing R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) is unconstitutional as applied and that his admission was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made; the court denied the motion prior to addressing the merits, and the appeals were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) is unconstitutional as applied | T.A. contends D.B. renders the statute unconstitutional when both offender and victim are under 13 | State argues statute differentiates between offender and victim even when both are under 13 | Not unconstitutional as applied |
| Whether T.A.’s admission was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made under Juv.R. 29(D) | Admission lacked proper Juv.R. 29(D) procedure and warnings | Court substantially complied by questioning and obtaining admission | Admission not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made; order reversed |
| Effect of reversal on mootness and Civ.R. 60(B) motion | If statute unconstitutional, Civ.R. 60(B) relief warranted | Moot since judgment reversed | Second Assignment moot; overall reversal and remand; 60(B) relief moot on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 104 (2011-Ohio-2671) (as applied to under-13 siblings, unconstitutional as to due process and equal protection)
- In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267 (2007-Ohio-4919) (strict compliance with Juv.R. 29(D) preferable; substantial compliance suffices absent prejudice)
- In re J.P., 2012-Ohio-1451 (11th Dist. Geauga No. 2011-G-3023, 2012-Ohio-1451) (discusses limitations of extending D.B. rationale to other statutes)
- State v. Dunlap, 129 Ohio St.3d 461 (2011-Ohio-4111) (Gross Sexual Imposition requires offender’s purposeful action; distinguishes victim and offender)