State v. Jackson
2016 Ohio 8144
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Demetrius Jackson was charged with sexual offenses (rape, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping) allegedly against a 14-year-old; bench trial resulted in convictions and concurrent prison terms.
- After arraignment and appointment of counsel, a Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS) child advocate interviewed Jackson in the county jail without giving Miranda warnings or notifying counsel; the advocate testified about his statements at trial over defense objection.
- The child victim and a sexual assault nurse described sexual contact and a neck mark; DNA testing showed seminal material but no foreign profile conclusively attributable to Jackson, though he could not be excluded on some swabs.
- Trial court convicted Jackson on two rape counts and kidnapping (merged), and sentenced him to concurrent 11-year terms; importuning and felonious assault were dismissed midtrial.
- On appeal Jackson argued his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the advocate’s post-arraignment interview and testimony; the court majority reversed and remanded, finding constitutional violations; one judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the child advocate was an agent of law enforcement | Advocate is a CCDCFS social worker performing statutory duties, not an agent | Advocate acted under law enforcement direction per R.C. 2151.421 and MOU, thus an agent | Advocate was an agent of law enforcement |
| Whether the interview constituted custodial interrogation under Miranda | Jail interview of an inmate awaiting trial is not necessarily custodial; no Miranda required from social worker | A reasonable person in Jackson’s position would not feel free to terminate the interview; factors support custody | Interview was a custodial interrogation |
| Whether Fifth Amendment (Miranda) warnings were required and violated | Statements to non-law-enforcement social workers are exempt from Miranda | Because the advocate was an agent and interrogation was custodial, Miranda warnings were required and not given | Miranda rights were violated; statements should have been suppressed |
| Whether Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated (post-arraignment) | No Sixth Amendment violation because the advocate is not a police agent and interview was investigatory | Counsel had been appointed at arraignment; post-arraignment custodial interrogation by an agent without warnings/waiver violates right to counsel | Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated as no warnings or valid waiver were given |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing Miranda custodial-interrogation warning requirement)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (framework for determining custody in jail interview contexts)
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (post-indictment Sixth Amendment protection against deliberate elicitation by government agents)
- Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (Sixth Amendment rules on post-appointment interrogation and waiver requirements)
- State v. Bolan, 27 Ohio St.2d 15 (agent-of-law-enforcement analysis for Miranda obligations)
- State v. Watson, 28 Ohio St.2d 15 (distinguishing non-law-enforcement interviews from custodial interrogation requiring Miranda)