Office of the Ohio Public Defender Office of the Ohio Public Defender
 
 

| Home |About Us | Divisions | Reimbursement | OPD Resources | Internet Links | County PD's |

Key Supreme Court of Ohio Cases
of Interest to Juvenile Defense Lawyers

Last Updated:  September 25, 2014

Recently Decided / Other Decisions

Recently Decided

State v. Quarterman, ____ Ohio St.3d ____, 2014-Ohio-4034

Date of Decision: September 23, 2014

Oral Argument: July 8, 2014

Docket: 2013-1591

Summary: In Quarterman, the Court held that the failure to challenge the constitutionality of a statute in the trial court forfeits all but plain error on appeal, and the burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.

In re D.M., ____ Ohio St.3d ____, 2014-Ohio-3628

Date of Decision: August 28, 2014

Oral Argument: March 12, 2014

Docket: 2013-0579

Summary: In D.M., the Court held that Juv.R. 24 applies in bindover hearings. A prosecuting attorney is under a duty imposed by the Due Process Clauses of the Ohio Constitution and the United States Constitution and by Juv.R. 24(A)(6) to disclose to a juvenile respondent all evidence in the state’s possession that is favorable to the juvenile and material either to guilt, innocence, or punishment. The Court further held that it is an abuse of discretion for a juvenile court to dismiss a case for a prosecuting attorney’s failure to comply with a discovery order without first performing an in camera inspection of the withheld evidence to determine whether the evidence is discoverable under Juv.R. 24.

In re I.A., ____ Ohio St.3d ____, 2014-Ohio-3155

Date of Decision: July 22, 2014

Oral Argument: October 9, 2013

Docket: 2012-2122

Holding: Pursuant to R.C. 2152.83(B)(1), a court that commits a child to a secure facility may conduct at the time of a disposition a hearing regarding the appropriateness of juvenile-offender-registrant classification for that child."

In re H.V., ____ Ohio St.3d ____, 2008-Ohio-4791

Date of Decision: March 13, 2014

Oral Argument: August 20, 2013

Docket: 2012-1688

Summary: Juvenile court has authority under R.C. 5139.52(F) to commit a juvenile to the custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services for a period exceeding 30 days—Juvenile court may order a commitment term for a supervised-release violation to be served consecutively to a commitment term for a new crime.

State v. Long, ____ Ohio St.3d ____, 2014-Ohio-849

Date of Decision: March 12, 2014

Oral Argument: June 11, 2013

Docket: 2012-1410

Syllabus of the Court:

1. A court, in exercising its discretion under R.C. 2929.03(A), must separately consider the youth of a juvenile offender as a mitigating factor before imposing a sentence of life without parole.  (Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), followed.)

2. The record must reflect that the court specifically considered the juvenile offender's youth as a mitigating factor at sentencing when a prison term of life without parole is imposed. 

State ex rel. Jean-Baptiste v. Kirsch, ____ Ohio St.3d ____, 2012-Ohio-5697

Date of Decision: December 6, 2012

Docket: 2011-0934

Summary: A juvenile court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to classify a juvenile as a juvenile sex offender registrant after the court's delinquency disposition has been fully satisfied or the juvenile turns 21 years old, because the juvenile is no longer a "child" under the applicable statute.

In re J.B., ____ Ohio St.3d ____, 2012-Ohio-5675

Date of Decision: December 6, 2012

Docket: 2012-0018

Summary: Cause remanded to the Tenth District Court of Appeals for application of State ex rel. Jean-Baptiste v. Kirsch, ____ Ohio St.3d ____, 2012-Ohio-5697.

In re Bruce S., ____ Ohio St.3d ____, 2012-Ohio-5696

Date of Decision: December 6, 2012

Oral Argument: August 22, 2012

Docket: 2012-0059

Summary: Senate Bill 10's classification, registration, and community-notification provisions cannot be constitutionally applied to a sex offender who committed his sex offense between July 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, the last day before January 1, 2008, the effective date of S.B. 10's classification, registration, and community-notification provisions.

In re R.A., ____ Ohio St.3d ____, 2012-Ohio-5500

Date of Decision: December 5, 2012

Docket: 2011-1182

Summary: Affirmed on the authority of In re M.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 309, 2012-Ohio-4538.

In re J.V., 134 Ohio St.3d 1, 2012-Ohio-4961

Date of Decision: October 30, 2012

Oral Argument: December 6, 2011

Docket: 2011-0107

Summary: In an SYO proceeding, the invocation of an adult prison sentence upon a juvenile, pursuant to R.C. 2152.14, is constitutional and does not implicate a juvenile's right to a jury trial or the beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard; the standard is clear and convincing evidence. However, juvenile courts do not have jurisdiction over adjudicated delinquents once they are 21 years old.

State v. D.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 434, 2012-Ohio-4544

Date of Decision: October 4, 2012

Oral Argument: June 5, 2012

Docket: 2011-1677

Syllabus of the Court: An amenability hearing under R.C. 2152.12(B)(3) may be waived provided (1) the juvenile, through counsel, expressly states on the record a waiver of the amenability hearing and (2) the juvenile court engages in a colloquy on the record with the juvenile to determine that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.

In re M.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 309, 2012-Ohio-4538

Date of Decision: October 3, 2012

Oral Argument: December 6, 2011

Docket: 2011-0215

Syllabus of the Court: The term “proceedings” as used in R.C. 2151.352 means court proceedings, and in that context, a child is statutorily entitled to representation by legal counsel upon the filing of a complaint in juvenile court or upon initial appearance in the juvenile court.

In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513, 2012-Ohio-1446

Date of Decision: April 3, 2012

Oral Argument: February 16, 2011

Docket: 2010-0731

Syllabus of the Court: To the extent that it imposes automatic, lifelong registration and notification requirements on juvenile sex offenders tried within the juvenile system, R.C. 2152.86 violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 9, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16.

Other Decisions

In re D.J.S., 130 Ohio St.3d 257, 2011-Ohio-5342

Date of Decision: October 20, 2011

Oral Argument: November 4, 2009

Docket: 2008-1624

Holding: The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for application of State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374.

Note: Issuance of the mandate in this case is stayed pending he decision in In re J.V., 2011-0107.

In re Cases Held for the Decision in In re D.J.S., 130 Ohio St.3d 253, 2011-Ohio-5349

Date of Decision: October 20, 2011

Oral Argument: Various Dates

Docket: Various Docket Numbers; Opinion at 2011-Ohio-5349.

Holdings: The judgments of the courts of appeals are hereby reversed and the causes remanded to the trial court for application of State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108.

In re A.R., 130 Ohio St.3d 258, 2011-Ohio-5344

Date of Decision: October 20, 2011

Oral Argument: November 4, 2009

Docket: 2009-0189

Holding: The cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108.

Note: Issuance of the mandate in this case is stayed pending the decision in In re J.V., 2011-0107.

In re A.R.R., 130 Ohio St.3d 261, 2011-Ohio-5346.

Date of Decision: October 20, 2011

Oral Argument: None

Docket: 2011-1027

Holding: The cause is remanded for application of State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108.

Note: Issuance of the mandate in this case is stayed pending the decision in In re J.V., 2011-0107.

In re D.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 104, 2011-Ohio-2671

Date of Decision: June 8, 2011

Oral Argument: February 15, 2011

Docket: 2010-0240

Syllabus of the Court: R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) is unconstitutional as applied to a child under the age of 13 who engages in sexual conduct with another child under 13.

Note: The significance of the Supreme Court's holding is that children under the age of consent may not be charged with violating R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) because such a charge violates both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution.

In re M.P., 124 Ohio St.3d 445, 2010-Ohio-599

Date of Decision: February 25, 2010

Oral Argument: October 21, 2009

Docket: 2008-1562

Syllabus of the Court: An order of a juvenile court denying a motion for a discretionary juvenile bindover in a delinquency proceeding because the court finds that the child is amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system is not a final order from which the state may appeal as a matter of right.

In re S.B., 121 Ohio St.3d 279, 2009-Ohio-507

Date of Decision: February 11, 2009

Oral Argument: October 1, 2008

Docket: 2007-1751

Holding: In this case, we are asked to decide whether a delinquency charge filed against appellant under R.C. 2152.02(F) violated her right to due process.  For the reasons that follow, we hold that her right to due process was not violated, and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

In re L.A.B., 121 Ohio St.3d 112, 2009-Ohio-354

Date of Decision: February 5, 2009

Oral Argument: September 17, 2008

Dockets:  2007-0895 / 2007-0912

Syllabus of the Court: A probation revocation hearing is an adjudicatory hearing, which is held to determine whether a child is delinquent as defined by R.C. 2152.02(F)(2); therefore, both Juv.R. 29, setting forth the procedure for adjudicatory hearings, and Juv.R. 35(B), setting forth the procedure for the revocation of probation, are applicable to the hearing.

In re J.F., 121 Ohio St.3d 76, 2009-Ohio-318

Date of Decision: February 4, 2009

Oral Argument: October 15, 2008

Docket: 2007-2239

Syllabus of the Court: A court may order a juvenile to serve a previously suspended commitment after probation supervision has been terminated when the juvenile violates a separate, unexpired condition of community control.

State v. D.H., 120 Ohio St.3d 540, 2009-Ohio-9

Date of Decision: January 8, 2009

Oral Argument: January 9, 2008

Dockets: 2007-0291/2007-0472

Syllabus of the Court:

1. R.C. 2152.13(D)(2)(a)(i), which requires a juvenile court judge to consider certain factors before imposing a serious-youthful-offender dispositional sentence, does not violate the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Sections 5 and 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

2. Constitutional jury trial rights do not apply, in a pre-Foster sentencing, to findings that a juvenile court has made under Ohio's adult felony sentencing statutes when the juvenile court imposes the stayed adult portion of a serious-youthful-offender dispositional sentence pursuant to R.C. 2152.13.

In re A.J.S., 120 Ohio St.3d 185, 2008-Ohio-5307

Date of Decision: October 21, 2008

Oral Argument: May 21, 2008

Docket: 2007-1451

Syllabus of the Court: The order of a juvenile court denying a motion for mandatory bindover bars the state from prosecuting a juvenile offender as an adult for a criminal offense. It is therefore the functional equivalent of a dismissal of a criminal indictment and constitutes a final order from which the state may appeal as a matter of right.

In re Andrew, 119 Ohio St.3d 466, 2008-Ohio-4791

Date of Decision: September 25, 2008

Oral Argument: April 8, 2008

Docket: 2007-0728

Syllabus of the Court: When a juvenile court is exercising jurisdiction over a person adjudicated a delinquent child pursuant to the matter for which the person was adjudicated delinquent, the person adjudicated delinquent shall be treated as a child until he reaches the age of 21.

In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267, 2007-Ohio-4919

Date of Decision: September 27, 2007

Oral Argument: April 18, 2007

Docket: 2006-1074

Syllabus of the Court:

1. The word “represent” in the fifth sentence of R.C. 2151.352 means to counsel or advise the juvenile in a delinquency proceeding.

2. In a delinquency proceeding, a juvenile may waive his constitutional right to counsel, subject to certain standards, if he is counseled and advised by his parent, custodian, or guardian. If the juvenile is not counseled by his parent, guardian, or custodian and has not consulted with an attorney, he may not waive his right to counsel.

3. A totality-of-the-circumstances analysis is the proper test to be used in ascertaining whether there has been a valid waiver of counsel by a juvenile.

4. In determining whether a juvenile’s waiver of counsel in a delinquency case is valid under the totality of the circumstances, the court must consider the age, intelligence, and education of the juvenile; the juvenile’s background and experience generally and in the court system specifically; the presence or absence of the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or custodian; the language used by the court in describing the juvenile’s rights; the juvenile’s conduct; the juvenile’s emotional stability; and the complexity of the proceedings.

5. In a delinquency case, a judge, acting as parens patriae, has the inherent authority to appoint counsel for the juvenile to determine whether he should waive his rights.

6. In a juvenile delinquency case, the preferred practice is strict compliance with Juv.R. 29(D). If the trial court substantially complies with Juv.R. 29(D) in accepting an admission by a juvenile, the plea will be deemed voluntary absent a showing of prejudice by the juvenile or a showing that the totality of the circumstances does not support a finding of a valid waiver.


"Justice is the greatest interest of man on earth."

Daniel Webster

| Web Mail | Log-in | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Accessibility | Press | Contact Us |