State v. Batista is an appeal from Hamilton County. Orlando Batista was charged with and convicted of felonious assault under R.C. 2903.11(B)(1), which makes it a crime for any person who knows he or she is HIV positive to engage in sexual conduct with another person without first disclosing that status. The petition argued that the statute violates the equal protection clauses of the Ohio and US Constitutions because it applies to HIV but not to similar infectious diseases such as hepatitis. The petition also argued that the statute violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution because it compels speech based on the speech's content. The petition was supported by an amicus brief on behalf of 15 human rights and criminal defense organizations.
In re D.S. comes from the juvenile court in Franklin County. D.S., a 12-year-old boy, was charged with gross sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4). That statute criminalizes sexual contact with anyone under the age of 13; the victim was a 9-year-old boy. Two questions are presented. First, Juvenile Rule 9(A) permits a juvenile court to employ "community resources" rather than formal court action in appropriate cases. The juvenile court found that formal court action was not appropriate on the facts of the case, and dismissed the charges. The Tenth District reversed, writing that the record does not support a finding that "no crime occurred." The petition asks the Court to interpret Juv.R. 9(A), in particular with respect to whether its application is limited to cases in which the record supports a finding that "no crime occurred"--a phrase which does not appear in the rule. The second question presented is whether R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant who is also under the age of 13. The Tenth District said no, but the petition argues that the statute effects in essence a statutory GSI offense equivalent to the statutory rape offense in R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)--a statute which the Ohio Supreme Court held in 2011 to be unconstitutional as applied to defendants under the age of 13 when the victim is also under 13, in the case of In re D.B. The petition argues that if the Tenth District's decision is upheld, the State can circumvent the holding of In re D.B. with "creative pleading," by charging juveniles under 13 with GSI rather than rape.
State v. Beasley asks whether a trial counsel's unrefuted proffer is sufficient to preserve an error on appeal. During an in-chambers conference, Beasley's attorney explained that the State had agreed to allow Beasley to plead no contest. The trial judge explained that she had a blanket policy of not accepting no-contest pleas. The parties then went on the record, Beasley's counsel summarized the in-chambers conference, the State confirmed--or at least did not object to--the substance of that conference, and Beasley then pleaded guilty. On appeal the First District held that while the trial judge's blanket policy of refusing no-contest pleas was impermissible, Beasley did not preserve the error for appeal because she did not plead no contest and the judge did not refuse to accept her plea while on the record. The First District panel in Beasley included Judge Pat Fischer, who is running for Justice Lanzinger's seat on the Court; Judge Fischer dissented and wrote that he would have found the error to be preserved.
The opening briefs in Batista, In re D.S., and Beasley will be due on roughly December 5.
Finally, State v. Jackson was accepted and held for the decision in State v. Shalash, a certified conflict case out of the Twelfth District. The question in Shalash is whether "controlled substance analogs" were criminalized effective as of October 2011 (when the "trafficking in controlled substances" statute took effect) or December 2012 (when the phrase "controlled substance analog" was added to the statute). Shalash has been fully briefed and was argued on August 30. A decision is likely to be issued before Justices Pfeiffer and Lanzinger retire in early January.
No comments:
Post a Comment