State v. Pittman (Slip Opinion), 79 N.E.3d 531

In 1988 Marion County ordered Robert Pittman to pay child support for two daughters until they were emancipated.
On November 20, 2006, the family court determined both daughters were emancipated as of August 31, 2006, entered judgments for arrearages, and stated that “all current child support shall cease effective 8/31/06.”
Pittman was later found in contempt in 2007 for failing to pay arrearages; civil sanctions were imposed and partially suspended.
A 2009 indictment charged Pittman with multiple felony counts under R.C. 2919.21(B) for failing to provide support during various two-year periods through June 30, 2009; service of the indictment did not occur until 2013.
The trial court dismissed most counts as time-barred or violative of speedy-trial rights; the remaining counts (alleging failure to pay during 7/1/2007–6/30/2009) were dismissed on the ground that R.C. 2919.21(B) requires a current legal obligation to support.
The Third District affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court accepted conflict certification and held that prosecution under R.C. 2919.21(B) cannot be based solely on an arrearage-only order when no current legal obligation to support exists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2919.21(B) criminalizes nonpayment of an arrearage-only order when the child is emancipated	State: arrearage judgments qualify as child-support orders and can form the basis for prosecution	Pittman: statute requires a present legal obligation to support; after emancipation no current duty existed	Court: statute unambiguous—uses present tense “is legally obligated”; prosecution requires a current obligation; arrearage-only orders do not create a current duty for §2919.21(B) prosecution
Whether the state could evade the statute of limitations by converting old nonpayment into an arrearage order and then criminally charging later	State: asserted charges tied to 2006 arrearage orders	Pittman: doing so would effectively extend the statute of limitations	Court: rejected state’s approach; cannot use arrearage order to extend felony statute of limitations—state must pursue civil remedies or timely criminal charges

Estate of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 126 Ohio St.3d 138 (Ohio 2010) (statutory interpretation: apply plain language when unambiguous)
State v. Kreischer, 109 Ohio St.3d 391 (Ohio 2006) (when legislature is clear, courts apply statute as written)
State v. Pittman, 21 N.E.3d 1118 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014) (Third Dist. opinion affirming dismissal on ground no current support obligation existed)