State v. Sager, 131 N.E.3d 335

In April 2013 Lakysha Sager took her two daughters (then ages 9 and 11) from a school-bus stop without the custodial parent’s permission; she returned them to police about 14 hours later.
A grand jury indicted Sager on two counts of interference with custody, each count naming a different child; a jury convicted her of both first-degree misdemeanors.
Sager was sentenced (30-day jail term suspended, probation), and multiple direct appeals were dismissed.
Sager filed two applications to seal her conviction records; the trial court denied the second application on the ground that the victims were children under the statutory age threshold.
The central legal question on appeal: whether the “victim” of an R.C. 2919.23 interference-with-custody offense is the child taken (making sealing precluded when the child is under 16) or the custodial parent.

Issue	State's Argument	Sager's Argument	Held
Who is the “victim” for R.C. 2919.23 prosecutions?	The child who is enticed, taken, kept, or harbored is the victim.	The custodial parent is the victim because custody is the right infringed.	Child is the victim for R.C. 2919.23(A)(1).
Does R.C. 2953.36(A)(6) bar sealing here?	Yes — victims were under 16, so sealing statute does not apply.	No — if parent is victim, sealing statute could apply.	R.C. 2953.36(A)(6) precludes sealing because the victims were minors under the age threshold.
Can appellate court consider May 2014 trial transcript Sager cites?	N/A	Transcript shows children not harmed; should inform victim determination.	Transcript was not in the record on appeal, so court will not consider it.
Was the trial court’s denial an abuse of discretion?	Denial was proper because court lacked jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.36(A)(6).	Denial was erroneous given Sager’s view of the victim.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.

State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498, 918 N.E.2d 497 (Ohio 2009) (statutory eligibility is prerequisite to sealing; standard of review issues)
State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178, 772 N.E.2d 1172 (Ohio 2002) (statutory interpretation of crimes involving child victims)
Barker v. State, 62 Ohio St.2d 35, 402 N.E.2d 550 (Ohio 1980) (purpose of record-sealing statutes to facilitate reintegration)
State v. Robinson, 146 Ohio App.3d 344, 766 N.E.2d 186 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (cited by appellant but did not decide who is the victim in R.C. 2919.23)
Carnes v. Kemp, 104 Ohio St.3d 629, 821 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio 2004) (statutory-construction principles; start with statutory text)
State v. Moaning, 76 Ohio St.3d 126, 666 N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio 1996) (read statutes in pari materia when related)