2012 Ohio 914
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Jeffrey Jay was convicted of gross sexual imposition of a child under 13 and child endangerment in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.
- This court previously affirmed Jay I, holding gross sexual imposition of a child under 13 is a strict liability offense.
- The Ohio Supreme Court remanded for application of Dunlap II, which limits strict liability to age as a strict element and requires purpose for sexual contact.
- Dunlap II holds age is strict liability; sexual contact requires purposeful action.
- Appellant admitted stroking his three-year-old son’s penis, leading to sexual arousal of the child, with jury instructed on sexual contact under R.C. 2907.01(B).
- The court ultimately affirms the conviction and remands the case for execution of sentence.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether age is the only strict liability element under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4). | Jay argues Dunlap II limits strict liability to age. | Jay contends the statute’s sexual-contact element remains unknown in this context. | Yes, age is the sole strict-liability element. |
| Whether there is sufficient evidence of purposeful sexual contact. | Jay alleges no purposeful conduct proved. | Prosecution contends actions in touching constituted purpose. | There is sufficient evidence of purposeful sexual contact. |
| Whether jury instruction on purpose was required or plain error. | Failure to instruct on purpose could deny due process. | Plain error not shown given admitted actions. | No reversible error; plain-error not established. |
| Whether failure to object to jury instructions was waived and affects outcome. | Appellant did not timely object; plain error standard applies. | No plain-error impact shown. | Waiver; no plain-error impact demonstrated. |
| Did the remand require any change in the judgment or sentence? | Remand directs proper application of Dunlap II. | No change needed beyond applying Dunlap II. | Judgment affirmed; remand for execution of sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dunlap, 129 Ohio St.3d 461 (2011) (strict-liability elements limited to age; purpose required for sexual contact in the statute)
- State v. Cobb, 81 Ohio App.3d 179 (1992) (principles on inferring purpose from conduct)
- State v. Waddell, 75 Ohio St.3d 163 (1996) (plain-error standard; impact on outcome required)