State v. Decker, 2017 Ohio 4266

Decker, an intellectually disabled defendant, was indicted for rape and three counts of gross sexual imposition involving a minor and was ordered evaluated for competency.
Multiple evaluators (Drs. Rivera, Kovesdi, and Khan) found Decker intellectually disabled; Rivera and Kovesdi found him restorable/competent at different times, Khan found him not competent.
After a competency hearing the trial court found Decker incompetent to stand trial and then held R.C. 2945.39 hearings on whether to retain jurisdiction and subject him to court-ordered institutionalization.
The court heard expert reports, live testimony, and a portion of a recorded interrogation in which Decker (after a lengthy, pressured interview) admitted touching the victim; the detective also relayed the victim’s statements.
The trial court concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that Decker had committed the offenses and was a “mentally ill person subject to court order” under R.C. 5122.01(B)(2), and committed him to the Columbus Developmental Center.
On appeal Decker argued (1) the court improperly relied on competency reports to decide institutionalization and (2) the finding of mental illness/subject-to-court-order was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Tenth District affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Decker)	Held
Whether the court had clear and convincing evidence to retain jurisdiction and commit Decker as a "mentally ill person subject to court order"	The evidence (confession, victim statements, expert reports evaluating Decker's deficits and risk) supported commitment under R.C. 2945.39 and R.C. 5122.01(B)(2)	The evidence was unreliable: confession obtained from an intellectually disabled, distressed defendant after coercive interrogation; corroboration was hearsay from a child; experts did not diagnose mental illness	Affirmed: court did not err — considering the totality (including experts' observations of deficits and Dr. Khan’s opinion about risk), commitment met clear-and-convincing standard
Whether trial court abused discretion or committed plain error by relying on competency evaluations to decide institutionalization	The court may consider any relevant psychiatric/psychological reports and had broad discretion under R.C. 2945.39(B)	Competency reports addressed different statutory inquiry; court should have obtained evaluations specifically addressing mental illness/dangerousness	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion or plain error; competency reports contained relevant material on perception, judgment, and dangerousness sufficient for the court to decide

C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (discussed civil manifest-weight standard historically applied in Ohio)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (clarified manifest-weight standard and rejected a distinct ‘civil’ standard)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (criminal manifest-weight/sufficiency distinctions)
In re Burton, 11 Ohio St.3d 147 (factors for commitment decisions and considering totality of circumstances)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Williams, 126 Ohio St.3d 65 (discussing admissibility/reliability issues and Miranda relevance)
In re McKinney, 8 Ohio App.3d 278 (statutory definition of mental illness controls over medical/clinical labels)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda rule governing custodial interrogation warnings)