State v. Durant
2017 Ohio 8482
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1993 Raymond Durant pleaded guilty to rape and aggravated robbery stemming from a 1992 park attack; he was sentenced to up to 25 years' imprisonment.
- In 2016, prior to his release, the trial court held an H.B. 180/Megan’s Law classification hearing and designated Durant a "sexual predator."
- The classification hearing considered statutory factors and expert testimony, including Durant’s Static-99 score of 5 (moderate/high risk).
- Evidence included the nature of the offense (armed robbery followed by rape), prior behavioral problems, incomplete participation in sex-offender programming, and disciplinary history in prison.
- Durant appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to explicitly state he was likely to reoffend and (2) the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was likely to commit future sexually oriented offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to make an explicit on-the-record finding that the offender is "likely" to reoffend | State argues the court’s designation and discussion of factors satisfy the statute | Durant argues the court failed to expressly state he was likely to commit future offenses, rendering the classification invalid | Court: No explicit statement is required; finding is implicit in a sexual-predator designation when statutory factors are discussed |
| Whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Durant is likely to engage in future sexually oriented offenses | State relied on testimony, Static-99 risk assessment, offense severity, incomplete treatment, and prison conduct as competent, credible evidence | Durant emphasized mitigating factors (young age at offense, lack of prior sexual offenses, completion of some treatment, lack of deviant preferences) and challenged applicability of certain Static-99 items | Court: The record contained competent, credible evidence (including a moderate/high Static-99 score and other factors); classification affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (Ohio 1998) (describes right to hearing and statutory framework for sexual-predator classification)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1959) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
- State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (Ohio 2007) (explains civil manifest-weight standard of review for Megan’s Law classifications)
- State v. Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 2001) (trial court should discuss on the record the evidence and factors relied upon in predator determinations)