Juvenile Cases Pending on the Merits in the Supreme Court of Ohio 
of Interest to Criminal Defense Lawyers

Last Updated:  June 4, 2009
(Click case number to view full docket with links to case filings.)

2008-1562, In re Poling

Represented by: Assistant State Public Defender, Elizabeth Miller

Appeal taken by:  State of Ohio

Proposition of Law I: The Juvenile Court order denying the State's discretionary bindover motion to transfer jurisdiction is an appealable order and the State may take an immediate appeal from the ruling of the Juvenile Court.

Proposition of Law II: The ex parte communications with third parties and the consideration of extraneous evidence by the Juvenile Court Judge were legal errors requiring reversal of his ruling denying the State's discretionary bindover motion.

Proposition of Law III: The consideration of extraneous evidence through ex parte communications was a per se abuse of discretion requiring reversal of the ruling denying the state's discretionary bindover motion.

Proposition of Law IV: The consideration of extraneous evidence by the Juvenile Court Judge was unethical conduct requiring reversal of his ruling denying the state's motion to transfer as the Judge's misconduct prejudiced the State and deprived the proceedings of fundamental fairness and due process of law.

Proposition of Law V: The Juvenile Court Judge abused his discretion in crediting Vincent Ciola's letter rather than the report of Dr. Tennenbaum and in substituting his own beliefs for those of Dr. Tennenbaum.

Proposition of Law VI: The Juvenile Court Judge abused his discretion while weighing the statutory factors contained in R.C. §2152.12(D)-(E), placed undue reliance on the possibility of a serious youthful offender disposition, and failed to consider the overriding purposes for dispositions as contained in R.C.§2152.01.

Proposition of Law VII: The cumulative errors of the Juvenile Court Judge requires reversal.

2008-1624, In re Smith

Represented by: Assistant State Public Defender, Brooke Burns

Proposition of Law I: The application of S.B. 10 to persons who committed their offenses prior to the enactment of Senate Bill violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution.  Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

Proposition of Law II: The application of S.B. 10 to persons who committed their offense prior to the enactment of S.B. 10 violates the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution.  Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution.

Proposition of Law III: The application of S.B. 10 violates the United States Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.  Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Proposition of Law IV: A juvenile court has no authority to classify a juvenile, adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense, as a juvenile sex offender registrant when the statutory provisions governing such a hearing were repealed at the time in which the hearing was conducted.

2008-1926, In re G.E.S.

Represented by: Assistant State Public Defender, Brooke Burns

Appeal Accepted and held for the decision in In re Smith, 2008-1624.

Proposition of Law I: An appellate court's finding that a lower court had discretion in determining a juvenile's registration tier level under Senate Bill 10 requires the reversal and remanding of the lower court's decision, when the lower court expressly held that no such discretion existed.

Proposition of Law II: The application of Senate Bill 10 to persons who committed their offenses prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

Proposition of Law III: The application of Senate Bill 10 to persons who committed their offense prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Article XI, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution.

2008-2257, In re Gant

Represented by: Assistant State Public Defender, Brooke Burns

Appeal Accepted on Propositions of Law II and III and held for the decision in In re Smith, 2008-1624.

Proposition of Law II: The application of Senate Bill 10 to persons who committed their offenses prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

Proposition of Law III: The application of Senate Bill 10 to persons who committed their offense prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution.

2009-0189, In re A.R.

Represented by: Assistant State Public Defender, Brooke Burns

Appeal Accepted and briefing ordered on Proposition of Law I, Propositions of Law II and III held for the decision in In re Smith, 2008-1624.

Proposition of Law I: The retroactive application of Senate Bill 10 to juveniles whose offense was committed prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the juvenile's right to Due Process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution.

Proposition of Law II: The retroactive application of Senate Bill 10 to juveniles whose offense was committed prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution and the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution; Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution.

Proposition of Law III: Applying Senate Bill 10 to juveniles in a way that classifies them based solely on their offense constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2009-0223, In re A.R.

Represented by: Assistant State Public Defender, Amanda Powell

Appeal Accepted on Proposition of Law I and held for the decision in In re Smith, 2008-1624.

Proposition of Law I: The retroactive application of Senate Bill 10 to juveniles whose offense was committed prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution and the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution; Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution.

2009-0224, In re L.F.

Represented by: Assistant State Public Defender, Amanda Powell

Appeal Accepted on Proposition of Law I and held for the decision in In re Smith, 2008-1624.

Proposition of Law I: A juvenile court has no authority to conduct an adjudication hearing or to find a child delinquent when the statutory provisions governing such a hearing were repealed at the time in which the hearing was conducted.

2009-0358, In re S.R.P.

Represented by: Assistant State Public Defender, Amanda Powell

Appeal Accepted and held for the decision in In re Smith, 2008-1624.

Proposition of Law I: The retroactive application of Senate Bill 10 to juveniles whose offenses were committed prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution and the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution; Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution.

Proposition of Law II: A juvenile court has no authority to classify a juvenile, adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense, as a juvenile sex offender registrant when the statutory provisions governing such a hearing were repealed at the time in which the hearing was conducted.

“[N]either the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone.”

“Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court.”

“Unless appropriate due process of law is followed, even the juvenile who has violated the law may not feel that he is being fairly treated and may therefore resist the rehabilitative efforts of court personnel.”

In re Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1