THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SMITH, APPELLANT.
Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-274
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Decided February 3, 2022
No. 2019-1813—Submitted March 31, 2021
2022-Ohio-274
BRUNNER, J.
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-274
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SMITH, APPELLANT.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-274.]
A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under
(No. 2019-1813—Submitted March 31, 2021—Decided February 3, 2022.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 107899, 2019-Ohio-4671.
_______________________
BRUNNER, J.
{¶ 1} Ohio juvenile law is organized around the tenet that children who are charged with acts that would be felonies if committed by adults must be recognized by courts as children when adjudicating and determining the consequences to be
{¶ 2} This court has also noted that “[j]uvenile law and criminal law are not synonymous,” State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-5504, 73 N.E.3d 448, ¶ 13, and that “the very purpose of the state juvenile code is “to avoid treatment of youngsters as criminals and insulate them from the reputation and answerability of criminals,“” id. at ¶ 19, quoting In re Agler, 19 Ohio St.2d 70, 80, 249 N.E.2d 808 (1969). Stated another way, the juvenile-justice system must provide for accountability; yet it must also meet society‘s need to secure its future through its youth. Thus, the juvenile-justice system must hold juveniles accountable for their actions and, whenever possible, provide them with opportunities for learning and growth toward a better path. The juvenile court was created by statute, and consequently, its authority is determined by that which is conferred on it by the legislature. In re Z.R., 144 Ohio St.3d 380, 2015-Ohio-3306, 44 N.E.3d 239, ¶ 14. Today, this court is tasked with determining the legal effect of a juvenile court‘s
Juvenile courts hold a “unique place in our legal system.” In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267, 2007-Ohio-4919, 874 N.E.2d 1177, ¶ 65. They are legislative creatures that “eschewed traditional, objective criminal standards and retributive notions of justice.” Id. at ¶ 66. The overriding purposes for juvenile dispositions “are to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children subject to [
(First brackets sic.) Hand at ¶ 14. We should respect those stated statutory purposes when examining, applying, and, when necessary, interpreting the statutes for juvenile bindovers for prosecution in adult court. This bindover process is based first on the juvenile court‘s finding of “probable cause to believe that the child committed the act charged,”
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Facts
{¶ 3} Appellant, Nicholas Smith, was 16 years old when he was charged, in an eight-count complaint filed in the juvenile court, with committing acts that occurred on August 18, 2017. Smith and another juvenile, R.H., were alleged to have confronted two women who were about to enter a car parked in front of the women‘s home on West 65th Street in Cleveland. R.H. was alleged to have told the woman who had the keys to the car, “Give me your keys or I‘ll shoot you in the f* * *ing head.” That woman surrendered her keys, and the other woman said, “Do you want my purse?” and she threw her purse on the ground. Smith allegedly grabbed the purse, which contained the woman‘s cellphone, and Smith and R.H. drove away in the other woman‘s car. The women called the police. By tracking the cellphone, the police were able to locate it, along with Smith and R.H.
{¶ 4} Smith and R.H. were taken into custody by police within minutes. The tracked cellphone was found in Smith‘s pocket at the time of his arrest.
B. Juvenile-court proceedings
{¶ 5} The juvenile complaint against Smith alleged in Counts 1 and 2 that Smith committed the category-two offense of aggravated robbery (with predicate theft offenses), one count as to each woman, while possessing a deadly weapon and either displaying it, brandishing it, or indicating that he possessed it or was using
{¶ 6} Count 3 alleged grand theft, a fourth-degree felony, for stealing the vehicle of one of the women. Count 4 alleged a fifth-degree felony, for theft of the credit cards of one of the women. Counts 3 and 4 were both alleged to have been committed with a firearm.
{¶ 7} Count 5 alleged a first-degree misdemeanor, for taking the purse and/or cellphone of one of the women, and Count 6 alleged a fourth-degree felony for failure to comply with a signal of a police officer—for operating a motor vehicle so as to willfully elude or flee from a police officer while fleeing after committing a felony. Count 7 alleged a third-degree felony for failure to comply with a signal of a police officer—for operating a motor vehicle so as to elude or flee from a police officer and causing a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property. Count 8 alleged a third-degree felony for having a weapon while under disability, for possessing a firearm after being adjudicated delinquent for an offense that would have been a felony offense of violence if committed by an adult.
{¶ 8} On February 9, 2018, the juvenile court conducted a joint probable-cause hearing regarding Smith and R.H. pursuant to
{¶ 9} In a March 14, 2018 entry, the juvenile court concluded that Smith was 16 years old at the time of the charged conduct and that there was probable cause to believe that Smith had committed acts that if committed by an adult would be felonies. The juvenile court found probable cause to believe that Smith had committed the acts that would be aggravated robberies in violation of R.C.
{¶ 10} The juvenile court did not find probable cause with respect to the remaining felony counts—theft (Count 4), failure to comply (Counts 6 and 7), and having a weapon while under disability (Count 8). The juvenile court also found that there was not probable cause to believe that Smith had had a firearm on or about his person or under his control at the time of the acts charged or that he had indicated that he possessed a firearm. The juvenile court ordered the matter to be “continued for amenability hearing * * * upon the State of Ohio‘s motion for order to relinquish jurisdiction for purposes of criminal prosecution pursuant to
{¶ 11} On April 9, 2018, the juvenile court conducted a hearing to determine whether Smith was amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system and concluded that he was not. Pursuant to
{¶ 12} After the case was transferred to the adult court, the state obtained a grand-jury indictment against Smith on eight counts that were identical to those that had been alleged in the original juvenile complaint, including those for which the juvenile court had found no probable cause and including firearm specifications on the aggravated-burglary counts and the grand-theft and theft counts. The state also obtained an additional charge against Smith, a second-degree-felony count of escape, which had been transferred to the adult court in a separate juvenile-court proceeding. The escape count alleged that Smith had left a detention facility and committed a felony. In total, Smith, who was by this time 17 years old, was facing the possibility of serving over 50 years in adult prison on the charges.
{¶ 13} In September 2018, Smith entered into an agreement with the state and pled guilty to one amended count of aggravated robbery, with a one-year firearm specification, and one amended count of grand theft, with no firearm specification. He also pled guilty to the third-degree-felony count of failure to comply and to the escape charge. The remaining counts and specifications were dismissed. The adult court sentenced Smith to an aggregate term of nine years in prison, and it ordered the sentences for grand theft and escape to be served concurrently with the other sentences.
D. Appellate-court proceedings
{¶ 14} On appeal, Smith argued that his “statutory and constitutional rights were violated when he was indicted and convicted on charges that were never transferred to the [adult court].” See 2019-Ohio-4671, ¶ 11. Specifically, he argued that the adult court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider charges related to acts for which the juvenile court had found no probable cause, i.e., Counts 4 and 6 through 8, and the firearm specifications. Smith argued that a juvenile court may not transfer subject-matter jurisdiction to an adult court without conducting an amenability hearing and that an amenability hearing may not be conducted without
In this case, the juvenile court, prior to transferring Rosser pursuant to
R.C. 2151.12(B) [sic,R.C. 2152.12(B) , discretionary bindover], concluded that Rosser was over the age of 14 at the time of the offense, and there was probable cause to believe he committed the act charged. However, it failed to conduct an amenability hearing as required. While the amenability hearing may have been a futile act, the failure to conduct such hearing was a jurisdictional impediment that deprived the general division of jurisdiction over the case. Absent a proper bindover proceeding in the juvenile court, the common pleas court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the case and any conviction obtained there is void ab initio.
Id. at ¶ 28, citing State v. Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40, 44, 652 N.E.2d 196 (1995).
{¶ 15} The Eighth District rejected Smith‘s assertion that Rosser was controlling law and upheld the adult court‘s holding that it had jurisdiction over all the charges that were originally heard by the juvenile court, some of which the juvenile court had found were not supported by probable cause. The Eighth District instead applied its holding in State v. Frazier, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 106772 and 106773, 2019-Ohio-1433, that the adult court had jurisdiction over “all counts transferred by the juvenile court, including the counts the juvenile court had found lacked probable cause.” 2019-Ohio-4671 at ¶ 26, 29. The appellate court‘s rationale was that all the counts against Smith arose out of the same course of conduct and were based on acts that were part of a single crime spree, and “[a]s a result, the [adult court] had jurisdiction over all the counts in the indictment,
{¶ 16} We accepted Smith‘s discretionary appeal from that judgment. Smith asserts two propositions of law:
(1) For discretionary bindovers, a juvenile court cannot hold an amenability hearing on charges upon which a finding of no probable cause was made.
(2) For cases that involve both mandatory and discretionary bindovers,
R.C. 2152.12(I) does not allow the transfer of charges where a no probable cause finding was made, regardless of whether there was an amenability hearing.
{¶ 17} Together, these two propositions of law assert that the adult court lacked jurisdiction to consider the charges for which the juvenile court found no probable cause. We discuss and analyze that assertion below.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. History of the juvenile-justice system and transfer proceedings
{¶ 18} One of the primary reasons for establishing juvenile courts, which began to be established in the United States at the end of the 19th century, was to provide protection for those unable to care for themselves. See Hanning, 89 Ohio St.3d at 88. Since 2002,
The overriding purposes for dispositions under this chapter are to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children subject to this chapter, protect the public
interest and safety, hold the offender accountable for the offender‘s actions, restore the victim, and rehabilitate the offender. These purposes shall be achieved by a system of graduated sanctions and services.
{¶ 19} Within the statutes governing juveniles,
provide judicial procedures through which
Chapters 2151. and2152. of the Revised Code are executed and enforced, and in which the parties are assured of a fair hearing, and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced.
{¶ 20} Beginning in the 1970s, the United States began instituting policies purporting to be “tough on crime” and welcomed in an era of mass incarceration.2 The Brennan Center for Justice estimated in 2016 that there were “2.3 million
{¶ 21} In this context, punishment began to eclipse the care and protection elements that are intrinsic to juvenile justice and was seen as the preferred tool to address juvenile crime. Statutory avenues were created from juvenile to adult court that led to harsher punishment for juveniles. As states across the nation began to change their approaches to juvenile justice, Ohio‘s juvenile-justice system began its own transformation:
State legislators were keenly aware of the ramifications of a juvenile‘s transfer from juvenile court and its therapeutic milieu to adult court, in which punishment and deterrence are integral. In fact, transfer hearings were at the core of the “get tough” legislative response to the perceived epidemic of juvenile violence in this country, including here in Ohio. Hanning [89 Ohio St.3d at 89, 728 N.E.2d 1059]; Redding, Juveniles Transferred to Criminal Court:
Legal Reform Proposals Based on Social Science Research, 1997 Utah L.Rev. 709, 710-715 (1997). This “transformation of transfer policy has been quick and dramatic.” Bishop [Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System], 27 Crime & Just. [81,] 84 [2000]. Between 1992 and 1997, at least 44 states and the District of Columbia enacted provisions to expediently facilitate the transfer of young offenders to adult court by establishing “offense-based, categorical, and absolute alternatives to individualized, offender-oriented waiver proceedings in the juvenile court” that streamlined the transfer process. Id. “As a result, in many states transfer implicates a broad range of offenders who are neither particularly serious nor particularly chronic, some of whom are not yet in their teens.” Id. at 84-85.
In Ohio, the mandatory-transfer provision was one of the hallmarks of the state‘s “get-tough approach” to crimes committed by juveniles, creating a transfer provision wholly different from the discretionary transfers that previously were the sine qua non of juvenile transfers. Hanning, 89 Ohio St.3d at 89, 728 N.E.2d 1059. In this new regime, it is not the child‘s status as a juvenile that governs sentencing but, rather, the forum in which the child offender is adjudicated, so that the sentence ultimately imposed is one that is harsher than what a juvenile court would impose. The transfer hearing implicates far more significant issues than the venue or forum of trial; it serves as a vehicle by which a child offender is deprived of the rehabilitation and treatment potential of the juvenile-justice system.
B. Juvenile-bindover laws as applied to Smith
{¶ 22} Today in Ohio a juvenile may be transferred to adult court for criminal prosecution by way of
“Mandatory transfer removes discretion from judges in the transfer decision in certain situations.” State v. Hanning, 89 Ohio St.3d 86, [90], 728 N.E.2d 1059 (2000);
R.C. 2152.12(A) . “Discretionary transfer, as its name implies, allows judges the discretion to transfer or bind over to adult court certain juveniles who do not appear to be amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system or appear to be a threat to public safety.” Id.;R.C. 2152.12(B) .
State v. D.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 434, 2012-Ohio-4544, 978 N.E.2d 894, ¶ 10.
{¶ 23} In this case, the juvenile court found no probable cause for the charges that would have required Smith to be bound over. It was then required to determine whether Smith was eligible for discretionary transfer according to the following factors:
(1) The child was fourteen years of age or older at the time of the act charged.
(2) There is probable cause to believe that the child committed the act charged.
(3) The child is not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system, and the safety of the community may require that the child be subject to adult sanctions. In making its decision
under this division, the court shall consider whether the applicable factors under division (D) of this section indicating that the case should be transferred outweigh the applicable factors under division (E) of this section indicating that the case should not be transferred. The record shall indicate the specific factors that were applicable and that the court weighed.
{¶ 24} The question we address today is, what specifically transfers when a juvenile court exercises its discretion and binds over a juvenile, such as Smith, to an adult court pursuant to
{¶ 25} Smith argues here, as he did in the appellate court, that the language in the statute requires a finding of probable cause as to an act charged before that charge may be transferred to adult court. Smith generally asserts that any other outcome would be fundamentally unfair and a violation of his statutory and constitutional rights. The state urges us to look at the use of the term “the case” within the bindover statutes and to interpret it to mean something different from the term “the act charged” within the statutes, see
{¶ 26} In light of the statutory language and framework, the history of juvenile-bindover procedure, and the practical and constitutional constraints on the process, we hold that a juvenile court‘s amenability determination with regard to an act that is charged in the juvenile court is first subject to a finding that there is probable cause to believe that the child committed the act charged and that a transfer of the acts charged to adult court confers jurisdiction to adjudicate only the acts charged for which probable cause has been found by the juvenile court.
C. The juvenile-bindover statutes authorize transfer of “the act or acts” that are supported by probable cause
{¶ 27} By giving juvenile courts bindover authority, the General Assembly created an exception to the juvenile courts’ exclusive jurisdiction over juvenile offenders. See
{¶ 28} Additionally instructive is the meaning of the term “transfer,” which, for purposes of
1. The bindover statutes must be read in pari materia, and we may not add language to the statutes in order to reconcile them
{¶ 30} The statutory-construction canon of in pari materia instructs that statutes relating to the same subject “be construed together, so that inconsistencies in one statute may be resolved by looking at [the] other statute on the same subject.” Black‘s Law Dictionary 911 (10th Ed.2014); see also State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner‘s Office, 152 Ohio St.3d 163, 2017-Ohio-8714, 94 N.E.3d 498, ¶ 17 (lead opinion) (the in pari materia rule of statutory construction applies when the wording of a statute is in doubt or ambiguous, i.e., capable of bearing more than one meaning). Because the juvenile-transfer process involves the application of different sections within
{¶ 31} Focusing on “the act” rather than “the case” when determining probable cause and when determining what is transferred to adult court results in a cohesive reading of the bindover statutes. For example,
{¶ 32} The state and the Eighth District rely on
{¶ 33} Once an act is transferred,
{¶ 34}
{¶ 35} The phrase “another offense that is different from the offense charged” is but one of three parts of the statutory scheme of
{¶ 36} Finally, as part of this contextual analysis, we must “‘giv[e] such interpretation as will give effect to every word and clause in a statute,‘” treating no part “‘as superfluous unless that is manifestly required, and * * * avoid[ing] that construction which renders a provision meaningless or inoperative.‘” (First brackets sic.) Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 510, 2010-Ohio-2550, 929 N.E.2d 448, ¶ 21, quoting State ex rel. Myers v. Spencer Twp. Rural School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 95 Ohio St. 367, 373, 116 N.E. 516 (1917). We can give full effect to
2. Effects of the juvenile court‘s transfer of jurisdiction to adult court
{¶ 38} To hold that a finding of probable cause on any one transferable offense permits the transfer of the entire “case,” including offenses for which no probable cause was found, runs counter to the protections afforded to juveniles in the juvenile-bindover statutes. In Smith‘s case, the juvenile court specifically found (and the state conceded) that the firearm specifications in the complaint were not supported by the evidence presented at Smith‘s bindover hearing. Regardless, the state was later able to obtain an indictment in adult court containing the firearm specifications that had been found not to be supported by probable cause by the juvenile court. The state was then able to use the additional one- and three-year mandatory prison terms that the specifications require in its plea negotiations with Smith.
{¶ 39} For juveniles who are subject to being bound over to adult court for criminal prosecution, the state must present to the juvenile court “credible evidence of every element of an offense to support a finding that probable cause exists to believe that the juvenile committed the offense before ordering mandatory waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction pursuant to
{¶ 40} In D.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 434, 2012-Ohio-4544, 978 N.E.2d 894, we held that under the 1996 amendments to the bindover statutes, “a juvenile court cannot bind over a juvenile on the sole basis that the juvenile has been previously bound over.” Id. at ¶ 45-47 (announcing that this court’s ruling in State v. Adams, 69 Ohio St.2d 120, 431 N.E.2d 326 (1982), was explicitly overruled by the statutory amendments). To hold that a finding of probable cause on any bindover offense permits the juvenile to be bound over on any other offense would ignore this precedent. It would also render
{¶ 41} “Absent a proper bindover procedure * * *, the juvenile court has the exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over any case concerning a child who is alleged to be a delinquent.” Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40, 652 N.E.2d 196, at paragraph one of the syllabus. Unless the juvenile court finds probable cause to believe that the child committed an act charged, it does not consider amenability, and thus, not all the conditions for a discretionary bindover are satisfied to permit the discretionary transfer of a child’s case to adult court. See
{¶ 42} It is only the juvenile court that has jurisdiction to determine amenability.
{¶ 43} We hold that that the General Division of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Counts 4, 6, , and 8 and the firearm specifications because the juvenile court found that the acts related to those counts and specifications were not supported by probable cause and thus the juvenile court could not have made an amenability determination with regard to those acts. There was thus a jurisdictional defect in the bindover process.
III. CONCLUSION
{¶ 44} A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under
Judgment reversed,
conviction vacated,
and cause remanded.
KENNEDY, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by FISCHER and DEWINE, JJ.
KENNEDY, J., dissenting.
{¶ 45} Today’s decision by the majority is unmoored from the plain and unambiguous language of Ohio’s discretionary-bindover statute and from the actual legal consequences of a finding of no probable cause. To achieve its result, the majority falsely equates a finding of no probable cause with a dismissal. The majority’s decision puts asunder the orderly transfer of a juvenile and his or her case from a juvenile court to an adult court and results in a judgment that has no basis in law. Because the plain and unambiguous language of Ohio’s discretionary-bindover statute contemplates the transfer of a juvenile and his or her case and not just those acts charged in the complaint for which the juvenile-court judge has found probable cause, I would affirm the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals.
{¶ 46} Former United States Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter once said:
It is not easy to stand aloof and allow want of wisdom to prevail, to disregard one’s own strongly held view of what is wise in the conduct of affairs. But it is not the business of this Court to pronounce policy. It must observe a fastidious regard for limitations on its own power, and this precludes the Court’s giving effect to its own notions of what is wise or politic. That self-restraint is of the essence in the observance of the judicial oath, for the Constitution has not authorized the judges to sit in judgment on the wisdom of what [the Legislative Branch] and the Executive Branch do.
Statutory Construction
{¶ 47} In construing the plain meaning of a statute, we adhere to a set of discrete rules. When properly applied, these principled guideposts establish a protective barrier, ensuring that our duty to interpret the meaning of the law from only its text is not overridden by a desire for a particular outcome.
{¶ 48} In interpreting the text of the statute at issue here, the majority states that it took into account the “statutory language and framework, the history of juvenile-bindover procedure, and the practical and constitutional constraints on the process.” Majority opinion, ¶ 26. The majority then reasons that because the General Assembly defined the word “act” but not the word “case,” courts should assign more importance to the word “act” when interpreting the meaning of the statute. Id. at ¶ 28. After all, the majority reasons, “[h]ad the legislature intended the term ‘case’ to have as consequential a meaning as the state suggests, it would have made clear that intention by explicitly defining the term.” Id. at ¶ 29. But the majority’s reliance on “the history of juvenile-bindover procedure,” “the practical and constitutional constraints on the process,” and the majority’s newly created consequential-definition rule is improper, because those are not discrete rules of statutory interpretation that we are bound to apply. Instead, they are means to an end.
{¶ 49} “[W]e are not at liberty to regard anything but the express declarations of the legislature.” Burgett’s Lessee v. Burgett, 1 Ohio 469, 472 (1824). “It is admitted that if the will of the legislature be clearly ascertained, a court of law [is] bound to carry it into effect, however inexpedient or injudicious [it] may deem it.” Id.
{¶ 51} When interpreting a statutory provision, we have no authority to elevate the importance of some words in the statute over other words in the statute, because the court must give effect to all the words used, making neither additions nor deletions. Columbia Gas Transm. Corp. v. Levin, 117 Ohio St.3d 122, 2008-Ohio-511, 882 N.E.2d 400, ¶ 19, citing Cline at 97. “We ‘do not have the authority’ to dig deeper than the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute ‘under the guise of either statutory interpretation or liberal construction.’ ” Jacobson v. Kaforey, 149 Ohio St.3d 398, 2016-Ohio-8434, 75 N.E.3d 203, ¶ 8, quoting Morgan v. Adult Parole Auth., 68 Ohio St.3d 344, 347, 626 N.E.2d 939 (1994).
{¶ 52} An application of these rules of statutory construction to
R.C. 2152.12(B) Is Plain and Unambiguous
[A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, the juvenile court at a hearing may transfer the case if the court finds all of the following:
(1) The child was fourteen years of age or older at the time of the act charged.
(2) There is probable cause to believe that the child committed the act charged.
(3) The child is not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system, and the safety of the community may require that the child be subject to adult sanctions.
{¶ 53} We give meaning to all the words used by the General Assembly when interpreting a statute and read all words and phrases in context and in harmony with the rules of grammar and common usage. State ex rel. Steele v. Morrissey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 21. And when the statutory language is unambiguous, our review “starts and stops” with the statutory language. Johnson v. Montgomery, 151 Ohio St.3d 75, 2017-Ohio-7445, 86 N.E.3d 279, ¶ 15.
{¶ 54} The opening language of
{¶ 55} Second, the legislature limits the exercise of that authority by allowing a discretionary transfer only after the juvenile court determines that certain conditions exist. The conditions set forth by the legislature in
{¶ 57} Fourth, the juvenile court’s discretionary authority is triggered by the filing of a complaint in juvenile court that alleges that a child has committed an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult.
{¶ 58} Lastly, the General Assembly establishes what the juvenile court may transfer to the adult court: the case.
{¶ 59} Contrary to the majority’s determination, the fact that the General Assembly did not define the word “case” is of no consequence. There are an untold number of words used by the legislature in the Revised Code that are undefined. However, the legislature has enacted a statutory provision instructing that undefined words should be construed according to “common usage.”
{¶ 60} I agree with the majority’s definition of the word “case.” “Case” means the “ ‘proceeding, action, suit, or controversy.’ ” Majority opinion at ¶ 28, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 266 (11th Ed.2019). See also 1A Corpus Juris Secundum, Actions, Section 17 (2021) (“The term ‘case’ has been defined or treated as synonymous with the terms ‘action,’ ‘cause,’ and ‘lawsuit’ ” [footnotes omitted]).
{¶ 61} “The word ‘action’ has typically been understood to refer to the entire legal proceeding, regardless of how many claims or charges are included in the proceeding. * * * This understanding is consistent with common parlance. When we say that someone pursued a legal action, we are talking about the entire proceeding, not some discrete part of the proceeding.” State v. Craig, 159 Ohio St.3d 398, 2020-Ohio-455, 151 N.E.3d 574, ¶ 13. Similarly, in common parlance, a criminal “case” means all the charges emanating from a series of related events.
{¶ 63} A complaint is just a complaint until it is filed in a court. At that point, the complaint becomes a case pending before the court. Therefore, the case is the filed complaint and all the acts charged in it.
{¶ 64} In this case, based on a series of related acts, a county prosecuting attorney drafted and signed a juvenile complaint against Smith charging numerous acts. The prosecutor filed the complaint in juvenile court, and it was assigned case No. DL17114773. Therefore, the case at issue here includes all the acts charged in that original juvenile complaint.
{¶ 65} This determination is not only consistent with the plain language of the statute but is also supported by our recent interpretation of a different provision of
{¶ 66} And when the statutory scheme is looked at as a whole,
{¶ 67}
{¶ 68} The probable-cause requirement in
{¶ 69} The majority agrees with Smith that the determination whether an act charged is transferred to the adult court turns on whether the juvenile-court judge finds probable cause for the act. Majority opinion at ¶ 2. The majority reaches this determination by focusing on the General Assembly’s use of the singular “an act charged” in
{¶ 70} “We have avoided making fine distinctions about the meaning of a statute based upon its use of the singular form of a word. See Wingate v. Hordge, 60 Ohio St.2d 55, 57-59, 396 N.E.2d 770 (1979); State ex rel. United States Steel Corp. v. Zaleski, 98 Ohio St.3d 395, 2003-Ohio-1630, 786 N.E.2d 39, ¶ 14-19.” D.B., 150 Ohio St.3d 452, 2017-Ohio-6952, 82 N.E.3d 1162, at ¶ 16. And “the General Assembly has specifically instructed us to read statutes so that ‘[t]he singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular.’ ” Id., quoting
{¶ 71} The discretionary-transfer statute,
Consequences of the Majority’s Decision
{¶ 72} The consequences of the majority’s decision are far-reaching. The decision does violence to more than just the plain and unambiguous language of
{¶ 73} The majority does not explain what it means by its conclusion that a finding of no probable cause by the juvenile court means that the charge has “effectively been dismissed,” majority opinion at ¶ 36. Does it mean that the charge remains pending under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, awaiting further evidence from the state? Or does it mean that the charge is dismissed without prejudice or dismissed with prejudice? Regardless, none of these results finds support in the law.
Dual jurisdiction of juvenile court and adult court over a case or any portion of a case is strictly prohibited
{¶ 74} The jurisdictions of juvenile courts and adult courts are set by the General Assembly.
{¶ 76} Moreover, we have previously held that “[w]hen a minor is transferred from the Juvenile Court to [an adult court] on a charge which would constitute a felony if committed by an adult, the grand jury is empowered to return any indictment under the facts submitted to it and is not confined to returning indictments only on charges originally filed in the Juvenile Court.” State v. Adams, 69 Ohio St.2d 120, 431 N.E.2d 326 (1982), paragraph two of the syllabus. Adams has been superseded by statute in part, see Section 3(B), Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1, 146 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1, 96, (“H.B. 1”), but as we explained in D.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 434, 2012-Ohio-4544, 978 N.E.2d 894, at ¶ 46, the part that was superseded was the portion of the opinion that held that once a juvenile has had a case bound over to an adult court, any future case brought in a juvenile court alleging that the juvenile committed an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult would automatically be bound over. This court wrote in D.W.: “[I]n the wake of Adams, the General Assembly prohibited juvenile courts from holding that once a juvenile has been bound over to adult court, the juvenile will be bound over in all future felonies.” D.W. at ¶ 46. The portion of Adams regarding the power of the grand jury when a case is transferred to an adult court was not touched by the General Assembly’s statutory changes. The only statutes amended were
{¶ 77}
The court to which the case is transferred for criminal prosecution * * * has jurisdiction subsequent to the transfer to hear and determine the case in the same manner as if the case originally had been commenced in that court, subject to section 2152.121 of the Revised Code, including, but not limited to, * * * jurisdiction to accept a verdict and to enter a judgment of conviction * * * against the child for the commission of the offense that was the basis of the transfer of the case for criminal prosecution, whether the conviction is for the same degree or a lesser degree of the offense charged, for the commission of a lesser-included offense, or for the commission of another offense that is different from the offense charged.
{¶ 78}
{¶ 79} Like Ohio juvenile and adult courts, the position of county prosecutor and the grand jury have separate enumerated powers established by
{¶ 80} A county prosecutor has the authority to “inquire into the commission of crimes within the county.”
A probable-cause determination is not an adjudication
{¶ 81} Even if the majority’s conclusion—that a finding of no probable cause by a juvenile court means that the charge has “effectively been dismissed”—does not result in concurrent jurisdiction of the juvenile court and the adult court, the juvenile court’s no-probable-cause finding cannot mean that the act charged is dismissed. This is because a probable-cause determination does not have the same legal effect as a dismissal with prejudice.
{¶ 82} A finding of no probable cause is not an adjudication.
{¶ 83} A proceeding on the merits in juvenile court is controlled by
{¶ 84} The transfer procedure set forth in
{¶ 85} A no-probable-cause finding cannot result in the dismissal of the acts charged, because, as explained above, a dismissal can occur only after an adjudication.
The Facts of this Case Are Not What the Majority Represents Them To Be
{¶ 86} Lastly, the facts of this case are not what the majority represents them to be. At the outset of the juvenile-court proceedings, the judge had to decide whether this was a mandatory-transfer case or a discretionary-transfer case. That decision turned on the acts charged in the complaint and whether the trial court found probable cause to believe that Smith had committed them.
{¶ 87} The juvenile court found probable cause to believe that Smith had committed aggravated robbery. The aggravated-robbery statute,
{¶ 88} In State v. Hanning, 89 Ohio St.3d 86, 728 N.E.2d 1059 (2000), paragraph two of the syllabus, this court held that the complicity statute does not apply to the juvenile-bindover criteria set forth in former
{¶ 89} But the determination by the juvenile court in this case that there was no probable cause to believe that Smith had the firearm himself did not end the inquiry as to whether he and the case should be transferred to the adult court. That finding meant only that Smith was not subject to a mandatory transfer. The juvenile court then had to decide whether transferring Smith and his case to the adult court was proper based on the statutory requirements of discretionary bindover.
Conclusion
{¶ 90} Today the majority creates an outcome by inserting its own policy-making preferences into the language of the statute. The majority therefore elevates its policy preferences over the will of the people and the people they elected to serve in the General Assembly who are entrusted on behalf of all Ohioans to make policy decisions through the enactment of laws.
[T]he courts are not at large. * * * They are under the constraints imposed the judicial function in our democratic society. As a matter of verbal recognition certainly, no one will gainsay that the function in construing a statute is to ascertain the meaning of words used by the legislature. To go beyond it is to usurp a power which our democracy has lodged in its elected legislature. * * * A judge must not rewrite a statute, neither to enlarge nor to contract it. Whatever temptations the statesmanship of policy-making might wisely suggest, construction must eschew interpolation and evisceration. He must not read in by way of creation. He must not read out except to avoid patent nonsense or internal contradiction.
Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum.L.Rev. 527, 533 (1947). “[T]he only sure safeguard against crossing the line between adjudication and legislation is an alert recognition of the necessity not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained, reluctance to do so.” Id. at 535.
{¶ 91} Because the plain unambiguous language of
FISCHER and DEWINE, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Gregory Ochocki, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Lauren Hammersmith, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, Benjamin M. Flowers, Solicitor General, and Samuel C. Peterson, Deputy Solicitor General, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Attorney General Dave Yost.