State v. Miller
2017 Ohio 1554
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2001 Miller (age 14 at the time) sexually assaulted an adult woman; DNA linked him to the rape kit in 2015 and he was indicted and pled guilty in 2016 to sexual battery.
- As part of sentencing the trial court ordered a PSI and an H.B. 180 (court psychiatric clinic) sexual-offender evaluation and held a hearing to classify Miller under former R.C. Chapter 2950 (Megan’s Law).
- The psychiatric report (including a Static-99) placed Miller in a “moderate–high” risk category and noted an antisocial personality disorder diagnosis; the PSI showed a prior history of violent and other offenses (juvenile and adult).
- At the classification hearing the prosecutor relied on the PSI, victim statement, and clinic report; defense counsel emphasized Miller’s juvenile age at offense, lack of prior sexual convictions, and challenged risk findings.
- The trial court classified Miller as a sexual predator and imposed a five-year prison term; Miller appealed, raising three assignments of error: inadequate Eppinger hearing/due process, insufficient clear-and-convincing evidence/manifest weight, and equal protection/due process because the offense occurred when he was a juvenile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Miller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of classification hearing (Eppinger) | The hearing complied with Eppinger: record created, parties argued, court considered PSI and clinic report, and allowed expert material via report. | Hearing was perfunctory; court failed to make/findings and create adequate record under Eppinger and due process. | Court: Eppinger model followed sufficiently; record and factors were discussed on the record; assignment overruled. |
| Sufficiency / manifest weight (clear and convincing evidence sexual predator) | Evidence (PSI, clinic/Static-99, criminal history, nature of offense, antisocial PD) supports sexual-predator finding by clear and convincing evidence. | State did not formally introduce documents; Miller’s juvenile age and lack of prior sex-offense convictions show low risk; only sexually oriented offender warranted. | Court: Rules of evidence need not strictly apply; reports were reliable; competent, credible evidence supports classification; not against manifest weight. |
| Due process / equal protection (offense committed as juvenile) | Registration/classification under former R.C. 2950 is remedial and permissible even if underlying offense occurred in juvenile years; prior authorities allow adult prosecution consequences. | Applying sexual-predator status for conduct committed as a juvenile violates due process/Eighth Amendment and equal protection (juvenile greater capacity for change). | Court: Graham/In re C.P. inapplicable; Megan’s Law requirements remedial per Cook; classification does not violate due process or equal protection; assignment overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158 (model procedure and record creation for sexual-classification hearings)
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (Megan’s Law classification hearings are civil/remedial; judges may rely on reliable hearsay such as PSI)
- State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (state bears clear-and-convincing burden; standard of review and definition of clear-and-convincing)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (juveniles less culpable—Eighth Amendment limits to life without parole for nonhomicide) (distinguished)
- In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 (juvenile-specific juvenile-court lifetime registration under R.C. 2152.86 held unconstitutional) (distinguished)
- State v. Warren, 118 Ohio St.3d 200 (permitting imposition of adult penalties on acts committed as juveniles when charged as adults)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (civil manifest-weight standard: affirm if supported by some competent, credible evidence)