State v. Thompson
101 N.E.3d 632
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Jason M. Thompson lived with a woman and her three sons; the children called him “dad” and he performed caregiving tasks (cooking, school meetings, discipline).
- Teachers observed severe weight loss and signs of food deprivation in the three boys at a back-to-school event; children reported eating only one meal a day and being denied snacks or breakfast as punishment.
- Photographs, medical examinations at a Child Advocacy Center, and rapid “catch-up” weight gain after removal supported findings of caloric deprivation and serious physical harm.
- Evidence showed physical steps taken to restrict access to food: latches/locks on refrigerator and freezer, bedroom locks/alarms, and locking children in a bedroom; children described being prevented from accessing available food.
- Thompson was indicted on six counts of child endangering: three counts under R.C. 2919.22(B)(1) (abuse — second-degree felonies) and three under R.C. 2919.22(A) (violation of duty — third-degree felonies). After a bench trial he was convicted; the court merged counts and imposed consecutive prison terms totaling 13 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Indictment sufficiency for R.C. 2919.22(B)(1) | Indictment tracked statute alleging reckless abuse and thus was adequate. | Indictment was defective for failing to specify the affirmative act of abuse; omission deprived him of notice and was structural. | Indictment was not defective; tracking statutory language sufficed and no requirement to specify the particular act. |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence for "abuse" under R.C. 2919.22(B)(1) | Evidence showed affirmative acts (locking, latches/locks, confinement) plus serving inadequate meals that together amounted to abusive conduct causing serious physical harm. | Food deprivation is an omission/neglect (R.C. 2919.22(A)) not an affirmative act required for (B)(1). | Sufficient evidence existed: affirmative acts to prevent eating combined with inadequate feeding supported abuse convictions. |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence that Thompson was in loco parentis (R.C. 2919.22(A)) | Thompson’s own statements and other evidence (living with family, called “dad,” caregiving, discipline, attending school meetings) established an in loco parentis or custody/control relationship. | He was not the dominant parent, not primary caregiver, had separate residence and limited financial support; mother also present and responsible. | Sufficient evidence supported in loco parentis / custody-or-control; reasonable factfinder could find he assumed dominant parental role. |
| 4. Manifest weight of evidence on relationship element | State: evidence was persuasive and credible; trial court did not lose its way. | Thompson: evidence was not weighty enough to show a parental duty; convictions against manifest weight. | Weight review affirmed convictions; not the exceptional case to overturn verdicts. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26 (2008) (on indictment defects and structural-error analysis)
- State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204 (2008) (on limiting Colon I and plain-error review)
- State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (2010) (indictment that tracks statute provides adequate notice; failure to object waives defect)
- State v. Childs, 88 Ohio St.3d 194 (2000) (indictment must allege overt act for conspiracy where statute requires it)
- State v. Noggle, 67 Ohio St.3d 31 (1993) (definition and contours of in loco parentis)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (sufficiency vs. weight of the evidence standards)
- State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123 (1998) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)