State v. Blankenship (Slip Opinion)
145 Ohio St. 3d 221
| Ohio | 2015Background
- In 2011 Travis Blankenship (age 21) had a sexual relationship with M.H., a 15‑year‑old; he pled guilty to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (R.C. 2907.04), a fourth‑degree felony.
- Psychological evaluation concluded Blankenship did not display typical sex‑offender characteristics and posed a low risk of reoffending.
- Sentenced to five years community control, a six‑month jail term (served 12 days), and automatically designated a Tier II sex offender under Ohio’s S.B. 10 scheme.
- Tier II status requires in‑person registration in any county of residence, employment, or school within three days and semiannual in‑person address/employment/education verification for 25 years.
- Blankenship challenged the Tier II classification and registration as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and Article I, § 9 of the Ohio Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory Tier II classification and 25‑year semiannual registration violate the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual) | Blankenship: classification/registration is grossly disproportionate given consensual facts, small age gap, psychologist’s low‑risk finding, and minimal court sentence | State: classification/registration are legislative, remedial (public‑safety) measures tied to offense; burdensome but not extreme or disproportionate | Court: No Eighth Amendment violation — registration is punitive in Ohio but, on proportionality review, Tier II requirements here are not grossly disproportionate or shocking |
| Whether a new categorical rule exempting young adults with low risk should be adopted | Blankenship: courts should adopt a category for young adults shown to be low risk and in consensual relationships | State: no national consensus for such a category; legislature may set uniform tiers by offense | Court: declines to create new categorical rule; no constitutional mandate to exempt such offenders |
| Whether Ohio Constitution (Article I, § 9) provides independent protection rendering Tier II registration cruel and unusual | Blankenship: Ohio provision protects against punishments that shock community’s sense of justice | State: legislature’s policy judgment and prevalence of similar laws mean requirements are not shocking | Court: Ohio standard not met — Tier II duties are not so extreme as to shock the community’s sense of justice |
| Whether prior Ohio precedent requires treating S.B. 10 registration as nonpunitive (affecting Eighth Amendment analysis) | Blankenship: points to Williams and In re C.P. recognizing S.B. 10 as punitive (esp. for juveniles) to support constitutional challenge | State: argues penological goals and national practice justify requirements; some justices would treat registration as civil/nonpunitive | Held: Majority treats S.B. 10 as punitive but nonetheless finds requirements proportionate; concurrence would treat registration as civil/nonpunitive |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011) (held S.B. 10 reporting/notification requirements are punitive)
- In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 (2012) (held automatic lifetime juvenile registration under S.B. 10 violated Eighth Amendment/Ohio Constitution)
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998) (earlier decision treating Megan’s Law registration as remedial/nonpunitive for some challenges)
- State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7 (2008) (upheld S.B. 5 amendments as remedial and not ex post facto punishment)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (Alaska statute: conviction‑based registration may be nonpunitive; categorical classifications permissible)
- Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) (Eighth Amendment proportionality principles and categorical approach)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (two‑step Eighth Amendment review and categorical analysis for juveniles)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Eighth Amendment categorical rule barring death penalty for juvenile offenders)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment categorical rule barring death penalty for intellectually disabled defendants)
- Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) (foundational proportionality principle under Eighth Amendment)