State v. Johnson, 2019 Ohio 5386

Background

Aaron R. Johnson was indicted for Having Weapons While Under Disability (R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)) based on a prior juvenile adjudication for burglary, plus three counts of drug possession.
Johnson moved to dismiss the weapons charge arguing it violated the Second Amendment and Ohio Constitution and that his juvenile burglary adjudication should not be treated as an "offense of violence."
Johnson also moved to suppress statements from a December 18, 2018 custodial interrogation, arguing pre‑Miranda questions elicited inculpatory answers and the Miranda warnings were inadequate.
The trial court denied both motions, finding pre‑Miranda questions were routine booking questions and the Miranda waiver adequate; it relied on Carnes and other authority on the use of juvenile adjudications for risk assessment.
Johnson pleaded no contest to all counts pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to an aggregate 42‑month prison term (30 months for the weapons count, 12 months concurrent on the drug counts, consecutive to the weapons term).
On appeal the court reviewed four assignments of error: Second Amendment and Ohio constitutional challenge to R.C. 2923.13(A)(2); whether burglary is properly an "offense of violence" for that statute; suppression of pre‑Miranda questioning; and adequacy of Miranda warnings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Johnson)	Held
1) Whether R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) (disability based on juvenile adjudication for an offense that would be a violent felony if committed by an adult) violates the Second Amendment/Ohio Constitution	Statute is a reasonable regulation protecting public safety by excluding from the class of "law‑abiding, responsible citizens" those with violent juvenile adjudications; statute presumptively constitutional and narrowly tailored; relief from disability is available	Juvenile adjudication is not a criminal conviction and thus cannot justify depriving a fundamental right to bear arms; statute is overbroad and not narrowly tailored	Statute constitutional as applied; intermediate scrutiny satisfied—legislature may use juvenile adjudications as risk‑assessment tool; assignment overruled
2) Whether burglary (juvenile adjudication) is improperly classified as an "offense of violence"	Legislature may reasonably classify burglary as an offense of violence given the significant risk of physical harm and expectation of security in occupied structures	Burglary can occur without physical violence (e.g., stealth theft); categorizing it as violent is improper for denying rights	Court upheld burglary as an "offense of violence" for statutory purposes; assignment overruled
3) Whether statements elicited before Miranda warnings tainted subsequent confession and required suppression	Pre‑Miranda questions were routine booking/administrative questions; State agreed not to use pre‑Miranda statements at trial	Pre‑Miranda questions included drug use queries that elicited inculpatory answers and improperly tainted the interview	Court found pre‑Miranda questioning limited and largely routine; no deliberate elicitation or coercion that tainted later statements; assignment overruled
4) Whether the Miranda warnings were inadequate (right to consult/have attorney present)	Written and oral warnings informed Johnson he did not have to speak, could have an attorney present, and could have counsel appointed if indigent; waiver was knowing	Warnings did not adequately explain the right to consult with or have an attorney present before questioning	Court found warnings adequate and waiver knowing and voluntary; assignment overruled

Key Cases Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes individual Second Amendment right but permits longstanding regulatory prohibitions)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the states)
State v. Carnes, 154 Ohio St.3d 527 (Ohio 2018) (holding use of certain juvenile adjudications as predicate for weapon‑under‑disability does not violate due process)
State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 2008) (routine booking questions are not subject to Miranda)
State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519 (Ohio 2006) (Miranda and questioning practices; analysis of deliberate elicitation/taint)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (analysis of whether pre‑warning questioning taints post‑warning statements)
Arnold v. Cleveland, 67 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1993) (Ohio Constitution recognizes individual right to bear arms but subject to reasonable regulation)