State v. Batista (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8304

Orlando Batista learned in 2001 while incarcerated that he tested positive for HIV and later, in 2013, had sexual intercourse with his girlfriend R.S. without disclosing his HIV-positive status.
R.S. learned of Batista’s status two months later from a third party; Batista admitted to police that he had not disclosed his status before sex.
A grand jury indicted Batista under Ohio R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) (felonious assault) for knowingly engaging in sexual conduct without prior disclosure of an HIV-positive status.
Batista moved to dismiss, claiming the statute (1) compels speech in violation of the First Amendment and (2) violates equal protection by singling out HIV (versus other infectious diseases and alternate transmission methods).
The trial court denied the motion; Batista pleaded no contest, was convicted and sentenced to eight years; the First District affirmed and the Ohio Supreme Court granted review.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: it held the statute regulates conduct (speech burden incidental) and, under rational-basis review, is rationally related to the legitimate state interest in preventing HIV transmission to uninformed sexual partners.

Issue	Batista's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) violates the First Amendment by compelling speech	Law is content-based compelled speech; strict scrutiny required; statute is not narrowly tailored	Statute regulates conduct; any speech burden is incidental; alternatively, even if speech-implicating, it survives strict scrutiny	Statute regulates conduct, not speech; compelled disclosure is incidental and does not violate the First Amendment
Whether the statute violates Equal Protection by singling out HIV and sexual transmission	No rational basis for distinguishing HIV from other infections (e.g., Hepatitis C) or different transmission modes; law stigmatizes and discourages testing	State has legitimate interest in curbing HIV transmission and ensuring informed consent; classification is rationally related to that interest	Classification is rationally related to legitimate public-health and informed-consent interests; no equal-protection violation

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (First Amendment allows conduct regulations to impose incidental burdens on speech)
Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949) (conduct may be made illegal even when in part carried out by language)
Sorrell v. IMS Health, 564 U.S. 552 (2011) (content-based speech restrictions require scrutiny)
State v. S.F., 483 S.W.3d 385 (Mo. 2016) (statute prohibiting unconsented exposure to HIV regulates conduct, not speech)
People v. Russell, 158 Ill.2d 23 (1994) (statute criminalizing transmission of HIV had no substantial connection to free-speech protection)
State v. Williams, 126 Ohio St.3d 65 (2010) (rational-basis standard for statutes not implicating fundamental rights or suspect classes)