State v. Carnes (Slip Opinion), 116 N.E.3d 138

Anthony Carnes was indicted in 2013 under Ohio’s weapons-under-disability statute, R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), based on a 1994 juvenile adjudication for felonious assault.
Carnes moved to dismiss, arguing that relying on an uncounseled juvenile adjudication (and more generally any juvenile adjudication) as an element of an adult offense violates due process; the trial court denied the motion.
The First District Court of Appeals affirmed Carnes’s conviction; the Ohio Supreme Court granted discretionary review.
The issue presented was whether a prior juvenile adjudication may constitutionally serve as the disability element of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2).
The majority concluded that using a juvenile adjudication as an element of the weapons-disability offense does not violate due process, distinguishing this use from the sentence-enhancement context addressed in prior cases.
Chief Justice O’Connor dissented, arguing juvenile adjudications should not impose adult criminal disabilities given juvenile procedural differences and recent neuroscience supporting reduced juvenile culpability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a juvenile adjudication can serve as an element of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) without violating due process	Carnes: a juvenile adjudication (especially if uncounseled) cannot be used to establish an element of an adult criminal offense because juveniles lack full procedural protections	State: R.C. 2923.13 lists juvenile adjudication as one alternative disability element; unlike a sentencing enhancement, the statute targets a disability (risk) and provides relief procedures	Held: A prior juvenile adjudication may constitutionally be an element of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2); Hand and Bode are distinguishable and do not require invalidation of the statute in this context

State v. Bode, 144 Ohio St.3d 155 (2015) (uncounseled juvenile adjudication cannot be used to enhance adult sentence when adjudication exposed juvenile to confinement and counsel was not waived)
State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94 (2016) (Ohio statute treating juvenile adjudication as prior conviction for sentence enhancement violates due process / Apprendi concerns)
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) (prior conviction may serve as predicate for federal weapons-disability statute; statute’s purpose is risk exclusion and it included relief mechanisms)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing prescribed penalty must be found by jury except the fact of a prior conviction)
State v. Taniguchi, 74 Ohio St.3d 154 (1995) (an indictment or conviction can create a disability under R.C. 2923.13; conviction not required for the statute’s disability to apply)
State v. Barfield, 87 N.E.3d 233 (1st Dist. 2017) (statute focuses on existence of disability; legal disability may arise from less than jury-eligible conviction)