Along with arguments about juvenile interrogations, the Supreme Court will also consider increased prison time for repeat OVI offenders, a family dispute over drilling rights, a school board squabble, and state liability for an injury in a park.

Along with arguments about juvenile interrogations, the Supreme Court will also consider increased prison time for repeat OVI offenders, a family dispute over drilling rights, a school board squabble, and state liability for an injury in a park.

A Cincinnati teen who was interviewed by police following two murders will argue to the Ohio Supreme Court that a state law governing recorded interrogations violated his constitutional rights.  The law states that a person’s comments during a custodial interrogation are presumed to be voluntary if the session is recorded.

Tyshawn Barker, 15, was brought in for questioning by Cincinnati police following two separate shootings – the murder of a teen girl named Carrielle Conn and the shooting death of local man. It was alleged that Barker joined his older brother, another teen boy, and Conn in the brother’s attempt to get back at his mom’s boyfriend for having her arrested. The group went to the boyfriend’s apartment in October 2011. While Barker and his brother hid, Conn and the other teen shot and killed the man who answered the door, but he wasn’t the boyfriend. A few days later, Conn was found dead from gunshot wounds. The two other boys were also charged in the crimes.

Barker’s interrogation was recorded. His case was moved from juvenile to common pleas court, and he asked the court during trial to withhold the statements he made to police during the interrogation. The court declined his request. After pleading no contest, Barker was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Barker’s lawyers argue that the teen didn’t knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney during questioning. They contend that the state law unjustifiably creates a different standard for waivers only on the basis that the interrogation is recorded. They also maintain that special consideration must be given to juveniles who are being interviewed by police because children can be easily persuaded by authorities and don’t comprehend the consequences of comments made in an interrogation. The statute’s presumption that a suspect’s statements to police are voluntary when the session is recorded makes the law unconstitutional for juveniles, they conclude.

Oral Arguments
In addition to Barker v. State, the Court will hear four more appeals during its one-day session on Tuesday, Nov. 17. The Court will not be in session on Wednesday. Arguments will begin at 9 a.m. at the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center in Columbus and will be streamed live online at sc.ohio.gov and broadcast live on The Ohio Channel.

Previews Available
Along with the brief descriptions below, the Office of Public Information today released in-depth previews of the cases.

Case Highlights

• A man was convicted in Cuyahoga County for OVI, and his conviction included an enhancement for having several earlier OVI offenses. The county prosecutor contends in State v. Klembus that the OVI law imposing additional prison time for an offender convicted of five or more OVI offenses in the prior 20 years is constitutional. The statute doesn’t violate equal protection guarantees in part because the law furthers the state’s goal to protect the public from repeat OVI offenders, the state argues.
• Eisenbarth v. Reusser involves a family feud about the ownership of the oil and gas rights below 153 acres in Monroe County. In the 1950s, a couple gave the surface property to their son and split the mineral rights between their son and daughter. While the daughter’s heirs claim they’re entitled to half of a $766,250 signing bonus received from an oil and gas company, the son’s children maintain that the mineral rights were abandoned in 1994 and automatically returned to them as owners of the property.
• A member of a school district board of education in Delaware County wasn’t included in an email discussion among board members about a proposed letter to a local newspaper. The letter, which was submitted and published, challenged a newspaper editorial that had raised issues about a new board policy barring the members from contacting school employees directly. In White v. King, the board member excluded from the email exchange asserts that the dialogue was a meeting required by law to be held in public.
• A man fishing in a state park was struck and injured by a rock propelled by the mower an employee was using to clear brush near a lake. The man sued the state’s natural resources department. The state asserts in ODNR v. Combs that the department is immune under Ohio law because the man was a recreational user of the park. The state also maintains that the law protects property owners from any employee negligence claims related to a premises.