State v. Just
2012 Ohio 4094
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Eight-year-old A.C. reported to mother that neighbor Just sexually abused her over several years.
- Just, then 73, denied wrongdoing and claimed it was fabricated due to disputes between families.
- Indicted August 8, 2011 on five counts of gross sexual imposition; bench trial led to convictions on all five GSI counts.
- Sentence: ten years in prison; classified as a Tier II Sex Offender/Child Victim Offender Registrant.
- On appeal, Just challenged multiple assignments of error; court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for nunc pro tunc entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain error in five GSI counts due to identical indictments | Just argues counts were carbon copies lacking differentiation. | Just asserts insufficient notice under indictment theory. | Not plain error; counts differentiated by type of contact and locations; no notice violation. |
| A.C.'s competency and oath to testify | Competency is proper; child’s testimony should be allowed. | Court abused discretion re competency/oath for a child under ten. | Court did not abuse discretion; A.C. competent; oath valid. |
| Admission of State's Exhibit 4 and hearsay/confrontation issues | Interview recording was hearsay and violated Confrontation Clause. | Medical hearsay exception permitted; testimonial statements were not admissible. | No Confrontation Clause violation; admission encompassed non-testimonial and testimonial statements; harmless as cumulative. |
| Ex post facto/retroactivity of SB 10 to Just | SB 10 retroactively applied to classify as Tier II offender. | Act unconstitutional as applied to pre-enactment offenses. | Not retroactive; SB 10 applies prospectively to offenses after enactment. |
| Sentencing and post-release control notice | Maximum consecutive terms and post-release control penalties mis-stated. | Judicial discretion within statutory framework; no reversible error. | Sixth assigned error sustained; nunc pro tunc correction required for post-release-control notice; other sentencing issues not reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (2010-Ohio-3830) (plain-error standard and waiver via Crim.R. 52(B))
- State v. Ross, 2012-Ohio-536 (9th Dist. No. 09CA009742) (indictment notice and particularization considerations)
- Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2005) (indictment failures where counts indistinguishable)
- In re I.W., 9th Dist. Nos. 07CA0056 & 07CA0057, 2008-Ohio-2492 (2008-Ohio-2492) (dual-purpose child interviews; medical vs forensic statements)
- Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290 (2010-Ohio-2742) (detailing medical vs testimonial statements in child interviews)
- Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5 (2007-Ohio-5267) (Evid.R. 803(4) medical diagnosis/treatment exception for child statements)
- Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (concerning post-release control and void sentence implications)
- Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (consecutive-sentencing framework post-Foster reforms)
- State v. Allen, 2012-Ohio-249 (9th Dist. No. 25349) (clarifies Foster/Hodge interaction on consecutive sentences)