State v. Mole (Slip Opinion)
149 Ohio St. 3d 215
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Defendant Matthew Mole, a 35-year-old police officer, met J.S. (who claimed to be 18) via a dating app; they had consensual sexual contact and Mole learned the next day J.S. was 14.
- Mole was charged under two statutes: R.C. 2907.04 (unlawful sexual conduct with a minor — requires knowledge or recklessness as to age) and R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) (sexual battery — strict liability when offender is a peace officer more than two years older than a minor).
- A jury deadlocked on the R.C. 2907.04 count and the state dismissed that count; a bench trial resulted in conviction under R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) and a two-year sentence.
- Mole challenged R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) as facially violative of equal protection and due process; the Eighth District struck the provision as facially unconstitutional; the Ohio Supreme Court accepted discretionary review.
- The Ohio Supreme Court majority held R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) violates equal protection (Ohio and U.S. Constitutions) because it imposes strict criminal liability on peace officers without requiring any nexus between the officer’s professional status and the sexual conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mole) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) violates equal protection (facial challenge) | Statute arbitrarily classifies peace officers, imposes strict liability without mens rea or relationship nexus, and treats similarly situated persons differently | Classification is rationally related to legitimate interests: preserving public trust in law enforcement and protecting minors; some applications plainly rational | Held unconstitutional on its face: classification is irrational because it criminalizes officer-minor sex absent any occupational nexus or scienter |
| Proper standard of review | Apply rational-basis (no suspect class or fundamental right) but require meaningful relation between classification and statute’s purpose | Same (rational-basis) and legislature’s policy choices deserve deference | Court applied rational-basis but concluded the fit here is so attenuated as to be arbitrary and unconstitutional |
| Whether Ohio Equal Protection Clause permits independent, broader review than federal clause | Mole argued Ohio Constitution independently forbids the disparate treatment even if federal analysis might differ | State argued Ohio and federal clauses are functionally equivalent and federal rational-basis supports statute | Majority invoked independent state constitutional analysis and found violation under both federal and Ohio equal-protection guarantees |
| Remedy: facial invalidation vs. narrowing construction | Mole sought dismissal of provision as facially unconstitutional | State urged upholding statute or narrowing construction to require occupational nexus | Court affirmed appellate court and declared R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) facially unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection requires classifications bear reasonable relation to legislative purpose)
- Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (rational-basis review accepts plausible policy reasons and legislative generalizations)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (classifications undertaken for their own sake violate equal protection)
- McFarland v. Am. Sugar Refining Co., 241 U.S. 79 (1916) (legislature cannot presume or declare guilt by statute)
- United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004) (Fifth Amendment/Miranda context cited by concurrence in related Ohio decisions)
- Arnold v. Cleveland, 67 Ohio St.3d 35 (1993) (Ohio Constitution may be interpreted independently of federal analogues)
- State v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 323 (2003) (Ohio Constitution can provide greater protection than federal counterpart)
- In re D.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 104 (2011) (discussing imputation of scienter in sex-offense statutes)