State v. Brown
2019 Ohio 1666
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Chalmer L. Brown was charged by Crim.R. 3 complaint with two first-degree misdemeanor counts of non-support under R.C. 2919.21(B) covering July 1–Dec. 31, 2016 (Count I) and Jan. 1–Sept. 13, 2017 (Count II).
- Brown had an existing court-ordered child-support obligation established in 2001; arrearage payments were later ordered and modified.
- The child (K.M.) was emancipated effective Sept. 13, 2017; the criminal complaint was filed Jan. 29, 2018 (after emancipation).
- Brown moved to dismiss under Crim.R. 12(C), arguing Pittman barred prosecution because the child was emancipated when charges were filed.
- The municipal trial court granted the motion to dismiss; the State appealed.
- The appellate court concluded Pittman does not bar prosecution where the alleged period of nonsupport occurred before emancipation, reversed the dismissal, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pittman bars prosecution when charging document is filed after emancipation but alleges nonsupport during a period before emancipation | State: Prosecution may proceed because alleged failures occurred while a support order was in effect | Brown: Pittman prohibits prosecution because child was emancipated when charges were filed and present-tense statutory language requires a current obligation | Reversed dismissal: Pittman does not bar prosecution where the charged timeframe coincides with an existing support order even if the complaint is filed after emancipation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pittman, 79 N.E.3d 531 (Ohio 2016) (held R.C. 2919.21(B) requires a current legal obligation to support; prosecution for arrearage payments after emancipation was barred)
- State v. Patterson, 577 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989) (discusses legal-sufficiency standard for motions to dismiss)
- State v. Cassel, 66 N.E.3d 318 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (recognizes de novo review for Crim.R. 12 motions to dismiss)