Child-Victim Oriented Offenses


Franklin County Criminal Law Casebook

Reproduced with permission from:
Timothy E. Pierce and the Franklin County Public Defender Office

State v. Chapple, 175 Ohio App. 3d 658, 2008-Ohio-1157 – The version of the criminal child enticement statute in effect between 2001 and January 1, 2008 is unconstitutionally overbroad. It fails to require the solicitor have any illicit intent and fails to distinguish between solicitations made by other children and adults. New version may be OK since it requires proof of sexual motivation.
State v. Cheetham, Cuyahoga App. No. 84193, 2004-Ohio-6013 -- Defendant was adjudicated a child-victim predator based on a conviction for an abduction lasting ten seconds and that did not appear to be sexually motivated. The classification was not erroneous. While the court cited a psychological test used to weight the likelihood of committing future sex offenses, it also considered the defendant's prior record of offenses involving young victims. Opinion spells out the factors to be weighed at a child-victim offender classification hearing.
State v. Alexander, Stark App. No. 2004CA00206, 2005-Ohio-635 -- Inmate's constitutional challenges to statutes leading to his classification as a child-victim offender are summarily overruled on the basis of State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St. 3d 404, 1998-Ohio-291, and State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St. 3d 513, 2000-Ohio-428, which rejected similar challenges to the initial sexual predator statutes.
State v. Wilson, Union App. No. 14-04-40, 2005-Ohio-1094 -- Unless the offense is listed as a child-victim oriented offense, a defendant can not be classified as a child-victim predator, even by stipulation. It was ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel to so stipulate. Also see State v. Schuerman, Lorain App. No. 03CA008468, 2004-Ohio-4581.

Publishing Information

Published by Timothy E. Pierce
Copyright © Franklin County Public Defender and Timothy E. Pierce, 2015
Contents may not be duplicated without express permission.