State v. Bevly, 142 Ohio St. 3d 41

Background

Damon L. Bevly pled guilty in 2012 to two counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI) under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), third-degree felonies.
At the plea hearing the state admitted Bevly’s confession (Detective testimony and a CD) and argued this confession constituted “corroborating evidence” under R.C. 2907.05(C)(2)(a), which mandates a prison term when evidence other than the victim’s testimony corroborates the offense.
Bevly argued the corroboration-triggered mandatory-prison provision violated his Sixth Amendment jury-trial right and due process/equal protection because corroboration is unrelated to culpability or sentencing goals; the trial court agreed and imposed a three-year prison term.
The state appealed; the appellate court reversed, upholding the statute as rational and treating corroboration as a sentencing factor not requiring a jury finding.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review and held: (1) R.C. 2907.05(C)(2)(a) lacks a rational basis and violates due process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments); and (2) as applied, a finding that corroboration exists is an element that must be found by a jury under the Sixth Amendment (Alleyne line of cases). The case was remanded for resentencing consistent with the opinion.

Issues

Issue	Bevly's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2907.05(C)(2)(a) is constitutional under rational-basis/due process grounds	The statute irrationally increases punishment based solely on the presence of corroborating evidence; corroboration is irrelevant to culpability, recidivism, or sentencing goals	Legislature may rationally reserve mandatory prison for cases with corroboration; corroboration indicates greater proof and justifies harsher punishment	The provision lacks a rational basis and violates due process/equal protection; corroboration is an arbitrary basis for different sentences
Whether a finding that corroborating evidence was admitted is a fact that must be found by a jury under the Sixth Amendment	A corroboration finding increases the mandatory minimum and thus is an element that must be submitted to a jury	Determination of corroboration is a legal sufficiency threshold or sentencing factor for the judge, not a jury fact	Under Alleyne, the corroboration finding increases the sentencing range and is an element that must be found by a jury; applying the statute here violated Bevly’s Sixth Amendment right
Whether the corroboration rule improperly discourages confessions and forces trials	Confessions often serve as the only corroboration in child-victim cases; enhancing punishment for corroboration deters confessions and may pressure victims to endure trials	(Implicit) Deterrence/administrative rationales; legislature’s policy choice to tie mandatory term to corroboration	Court noted the statute creates a perverse disincentive to confess and to avoid trial; this supported invalidation under rational-basis analysis

Key Cases Cited

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements and must be found by a jury)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be found by a jury)
Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (overruled in part by Alleyne on whether certain sentencing facts are jury-found elements)
State v. Economo, 76 Ohio St.3d 56 (1996) (held corroboration for sexual-imposition statute is a legal sufficiency inquiry for the judge)
State v. Thompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 558 (1996) (articulating rational-basis test for legislative classifications)
In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 (2012) (discussing purposes of felony sentencing and proportionality)