State v. Hubbard, 119 N.E.3d 798

Robert C. Hubbard was indicted in April 2016 on two counts of Nonsupport of Dependents (R.C. 2919.21) for failing to pay child support covering 2010–2011 (Count 1) and 2012 (Count 2).
Hubbard moved to dismiss, arguing that his child was emancipated before prosecution began and thus he was not under a current support obligation.
The trial court denied the motion; Hubbard pleaded no contest to both counts and was sentenced to community control.
On appeal Hubbard challenged only the denial of the motion to dismiss, invoking the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Pittman.
The Eleventh District reversed, holding Pittman bars prosecution for nonsupport when no current support obligation exists at the time of prosecution (i.e., after emancipation), and vacated Hubbard’s convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hubbard)	Held
Whether a person may be criminally prosecuted under R.C. 2919.21 for nonpayment of child support after the child is emancipated	Pittman is distinguishable; Hubbard’s obligation arose from an existing support order, not an arrearage-only order, so prosecution remains permissible	Pittman bars prosecution when the defendant has no current legal obligation to support because the child was emancipated before indictment	Reversed — following Pittman, criminal liability requires a current support obligation; prosecution after emancipation is barred

State v. Pittman, 79 N.E.3d 531 (Ohio 2016) (majority holding that R.C. 2919.21(B) requires a current legal obligation to support; prosecution after emancipation is not permitted)
State ex rel. Steffen v. Judges of the Court of Appeals for the First Appellate Dist., 934 N.E.2d 906 (Ohio 2010) (motion to dismiss an indictment tests legal sufficiency; sufficiency reviewed de novo)
Risser v. Risser, 173 Ohio App.3d 430 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (distinguishes age of majority from emancipation; emancipation depends on facts such as completion of education)