State v. Parr
145 N.E.3d 1171
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background:
- Robert J. Parr was indicted on two fifth-degree felony counts of non‑support under R.C. 2919.21 for failing to support his daughter C.P. during two periods: Oct. 1, 2010–Oct. 1, 2012 and Oct. 2, 2012–Oct. 2, 2014.
- A November 16, 2006 child‑support order required Parr to support C.P.; FCCSEA later found C.P. emancipated effective Oct. 13, 2014, established an arrearage, and the domestic relations court adopted those findings on July 28, 2015.
- Parr moved to dismiss under Crim.R. 12, arguing State v. Pittman barred prosecution once the child was emancipated (i.e., no current support obligation at time of indictment in 2016).
- The trial court denied the motion, Parr pled no contest, was convicted on both counts, and received five years of community control.
- On appeal the Tenth District held Pittman did not bar prosecution because the charged conduct occurred while a current support order was in effect; the court affirmed and sua sponte certified a conflict with the Eleventh District to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Parr) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pittman bars prosecution under R.C. 2919.21(B) when the indictment is filed after emancipation but the charged conduct occurred while a support order was in effect | Pittman addressed arrearage‑only prosecutions; here the indictment alleges failure to pay during periods when a current support order existed and charges are within the statute of limitations | Pittman precludes prosecution once the child is emancipated and the obligor has no current support duty; filing after emancipation makes the prosecution unlawful | Court: Pittman does not bar prosecution where the indictment alleges failure to support during periods when a current support order existed, even if the indictment was filed after emancipation |
| Whether dismissal was required because R.C. 2905.031(E) (as raised on appeal) provides the exclusive remedy for arrearages when no current obligation exists | State did not address in detail on appeal | Parr argued a statute provides the exclusive means to charge arrearages after termination of support | Court: Issue waived for appeal (not raised below); assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pittman, 150 Ohio St.3d 113 (Ohio 2016) (holds a defendant is not subject to prosecution under R.C. 2919.21(B) for nonpayment of an arrearage when he had no current support obligation because the child was emancipated)
- State v. Palmer, 131 Ohio St.3d 278 (Ohio 2012) (Crim.R. 12 pretrial review may consider evidence beyond the indictment but cannot resolve the general issue at trial)
- State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 (Ohio 2008) (explains limits on pretrial Crim.R. 12 rulings and use of extrinsic evidence)
- State v. Oppenheimer, 46 Ohio App.2d 241 (10th Dist. 1975) (discusses the State's interest in ensuring children are supported and criminal law as deterrence)
- Meyer v. State, 14 Ohio App.3d 69 (2d Dist. 1983) (parental duty of support runs to the state; criminal sanction serves deterrence)