State v. Scott
2011 Ohio 6255
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Scott was convicted of gross sexual imposition and attempted rape in Cuyahoga County, with offenses occurring July–August 2007.
- On remand, the Ohio Supreme Court instructed this court to apply Williams and Dunlap to Scott’s case.
- Williams held SB 10 (the Adam Walsh Act) violates retroactivity principles for offenses committed before its enactment, affecting certain classifications.
- Dunlap addressed mens rea for gross sexual imposition against under-13 victims, concluding the statute requires purposeful sexual contact.
- This court previously classified Scott as a sex offender under the AWA, and this appeal concerns retroactivity and mens rea counsel in light of Williams and Dunlap.
- The court ultimately upheld Scott’s sex-offender classification and affirmed the trial-court judgment, remanding for execution of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AWA retroactivity and classification | Scott argues retroactivity invalidates the AWA classification for offenses before January 1, 2008. | Scott contends the pre-AWA period should evade registration requirements. | Classification upheld; offenses occurred after SB 10 enactment. |
| Mens rea for gross sexual imposition | Dunlap’s reasoning supports a mens rea of purpose for sexual contact against under 13. | Indictment tracked the statute and provided notice even if mens rea was not explicit. | Indictment not defective; jury properly instructed on sexual-contact element. |
| Indictment sufficiency and notice | Indictment sufficiently tracks R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) and not defective. | Indictment may be challenged for lacking explicit mens rea, which Horner allows as notice. | Indictment not defective; proper notice and instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (Ohio 2011) (AWA retroactivity framework; SB 10 constitutionality under Ohio Constitution)
- State v. Dunlap, 129 Ohio St.3d 461 (Ohio 2011) (mens rea for sexual contact; indictment tracking statute sufficient notice)
- State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (Ohio 2010) (indictment tracks statutory language; notice adequate even without explicit mens rea)