State v. Mole
2013 Ohio 3131
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Matthew Mole, a 36-year-old off‑duty police officer, had online contact and a single sexual encounter with 14‑year‑old J.S.; J.S. told Mole he was 18 and did not know Mole was a police officer.
- Mole was charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (R.C. 2907.04) and sexual battery under R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) (peace officer having sexual conduct with a minor more than two years younger).
- Jury trial on the unlawful sexual conduct count ended in a mistrial; bench trial found Mole guilty under R.C. 2907.03(A)(13); he was sentenced to two years and classified Tier III sex offender.
- Mole moved to dismiss the sexual battery charge as unconstitutional under Equal Protection; the trial court denied the motion and Mole appealed.
- The Eighth District reversed, holding R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) facially violates the Equal Protection Clauses because it lacks a mens rea and relationship requirement and is not rationally tailored to the state’s interest.
- As a result the court vacated Mole’s conviction and sex‑offender classification and remanded to grant the motion to dismiss; two other assignments were rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) violates equal protection (facial challenge) | The statute rationally furthers legitimate interests: protecting minors and preserving public respect for peace officers; a broad “peace officer” class and strict liability are justifiable | The statute is overbroad and irrationally drafted: no mens rea, no relationship/authority element, and punishes consensual conduct where officer’s authority played no role | Statute fails rational‑basis review; it is facially unconstitutional under Ohio and U.S. Equal Protection Clauses |
| Whether the indictment was defective (due process/indictment right) | State argued indictment supported conviction under the statute as written | Mole argued statute’s defects made indictment insufficient to charge a valid offense | Moot after constitutional holding; not decided on merits |
| Whether Tier III classification was proper | State would maintain classification follows conviction and Adam Walsh Act mandates | Mole argued classification challenge relied on invalid conviction/statute | Moot after reversal of conviction |
| Proper remedy (vacatur/remand) | State urged affirmation or narrower remedy | Mole requested dismissal and vacatur of conviction and classification | Court ordered dismissal of R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) claim, vacatur of conviction and sex‑offender classification, remand to grant motion to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Warrensville Hts. v. Jennings, 58 Ohio St.3d 206 (1991) (police officers held to higher standard of conduct)
- Jones v. Franklin Cty. Sheriff, 52 Ohio St.3d 40 (1990) (officers must comport themselves to maintain public respect)
- McCrone v. Bank One Corp., 107 Ohio St.3d 272 (2005) (framework for rational‑basis equal protection review)
- State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 513 (2000) (deference to legislature in equal‑protection rational‑basis review)
- State v. Peoples, 102 Ohio St.3d 460 (2004) (classifications invalidated only when bearing no relation to state goals)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (adult private consensual sexual conduct and limits on state regulation)