State v. Elder
2013 Ohio 3574
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In June 1997 Todd D. Elder pleaded guilty to rape, felonious assault, and gross sexual imposition; the trial court sentenced him to 19½ years, fined him, and adjudicated him a sexual predator under former R.C. Chapter 2950 (pre-Adam Walsh/Megan’s Law).
- Elder appealed the convictions and challenged the sexual-predator classification as violative of the federal Ex Post Facto Clause and Ohio’s prohibition on retroactive laws; this court rejected those arguments and the Ohio Supreme Court declined review.
- In September 2012 (over 14 years later), Elder filed a pro se motion to vacate his sexual-predator classification, again asserting Ex Post Facto and retroactivity violations.
- The trial court denied the motion as barred by res judicata and on the merits.
- On appeal, the Twelfth District affirmed, holding Elder’s claims were precluded by res judicata and, alternatively, that the pre-Adam Walsh R.C. Chapter 2950 scheme is remedial (not punitive) and therefore does not violate the Ohio Constitution or the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Elder’s sexual-predator classification violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and Ohio’s ban on retroactive laws | State argued classification and registration under pre-Adam Walsh R.C. 2950 were constitutionally permissible (remedial) | Elder argued applying R.C. 2950 retroactively and classifying him a sexual predator violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and Ohio’s retroactivity prohibition | Court held claims barred by res judicata; on the merits, reaffirmed that pre-Adam Walsh R.C. Chapter 2950 is remedial, not punitive, so retroactive application and Ex Post Facto challenges fail |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (Ohio 1998) (pre-Adam Walsh R.C. Chapter 2950 is remedial, not punitive)
- State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio 2010) (discusses constitutional issues arising from amendments under the Adam Walsh Act)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata bars relitigation of claims or defenses that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)