Background
- Raymond Morgan, age 16, committed multiple violent offenses; juvenile court held an amenability hearing to decide transfer to adult court and bound him over. He later pleaded guilty in common pleas court and received an 18-year sentence.
- Morgan’s mother participated in earlier proceedings but died between the psychological evaluation and the amenability hearing; Morgan had no living parent, guardian, or legal custodian at the amenability hearing.
- Juvenile court did not appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) at the amenability hearing; Morgan’s counsel did not request one and a family friend (self-described "godsister") attended but was not found to be a guardian or custodian.
- The Tenth District held the juvenile court erred by failing to appoint a GAL but found Morgan failed to show prejudice under plain-error review; it remanded only for resentencing on other grounds.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review to decide (1) whether a juvenile must request a GAL when parents are absent and (2) which plain-error standard applies to an unpreserved failure to appoint a GAL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile must request appointment of a GAL when parents are absent at an amenability hearing | Morgan: juvenile need not request GAL; statute mandates appointment when child has no parent | State: argued alternative points but did not dispute statutory command in facts | Court: R.C. 2151.281(A)(1) and Juv.R.4(B)(1) require the court to appoint a GAL when the child has no parent; juvenile need not request it |
| Whether failure to appoint a GAL is reviewable as plain error and which plain-error standard applies | Morgan: urged no prejudice requirement or presumed prejudice / structural error | State: argued criminal plain-error does not create presumptive prejudice and error is not structural | Court: Applies criminal plain-error standard (Crim.R.52(B) framework) to juvenile-delinquency proceedings; requires showing the error affected the outcome |
| Whether Morgan established prejudice from absence of GAL at amenability hearing | Morgan: speculated GAL could have changed outcome or offered different evidence/arguments | State: pointed to existing evaluation, counsel’s advocacy, and lack of concrete showing that GAL would have altered result | Court: Although appointment was required and error was obvious, Morgan failed to show the error affected the outcome; affirmed appellate judgment |
| Whether a failure to appoint a GAL warrants per se reversal or structural-error treatment | Morgan: argued for presumed prejudice or structural-error analysis | State: opposed expansion of plain-error rule; no per se rule | Court: Declined to adopt a presumed-prejudice or structural-error rule; refused to expand Crim.R.52(B) remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1966) (juvenile waiver/transfer hearings must meet due-process essentials)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (juveniles entitled to notice, counsel, and other protections)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (state must prove delinquency beyond reasonable doubt)
- Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1975) (double jeopardy applies to juvenile adjudication followed by adult prosecution)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain-error three-part test under Crim.R.52(B))
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (civil plain-error doctrine limited to rare cases affecting fairness/integrity of judicial process)
- State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316 (Ohio 1976) (historical treatment of unpreserved errors prior to Crim.R.52(B))