Court News Ohio
Court News Ohio
Court News Ohio

Constitutionality of Adult Offenses Based on Juvenile Actions Challenged

Image of an attorney standing at a lecturn addressing the Chief Justice and Justices sitting on the bench in the courtroom of the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center

The Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of sex-offender registration mandates for minors once they become adults.

Image of an attorney standing at a lecturn addressing the Chief Justice and Justices sitting on the bench in the courtroom of the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center

The Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of sex-offender registration mandates for minors once they become adults.

A man convicted when he was 19 years old for failing to register certain information with authorities disputes the constitutionality of the requirement because it was based on a juvenile offense.

In 2011, Robert Buttery was found delinquent in the Hamilton County Juvenile Court for two counts of what would be gross sexual imposition if committed by an adult. He was 14 at the time of the offenses. The court designated him as a sex offender, which under state law required him to register with authorities annually for 10 years.

Five years later, the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court found Buttery violated his registration duty and sentenced him to three years of community control.

The First District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling. Buttery appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which will consider his case at oral arguments next week.

Registration Mandates Infringe on Due Process for Juveniles, Buttery Argues
Buttery stresses that the primary focus of juvenile courts is rehabilitation rather than punishment. This goal, and the confidentiality of juvenile proceedings, are thwarted when a juvenile adjudication for a sexually oriented offense becomes the basis for a public conviction as an adult, he maintains. The crime – failing to register – is based on actions committed as a juvenile, and without that conduct committed when a youth, a juvenile would have no duty to register, he states.

Noting that juvenile courts are civil, not criminal, courts, he also argues that it is fundamentally unfair to use a juvenile adjudication as the element that forms the basis for an adult crime. Adults have the benefit of a trial by jury, but juveniles have no right to a jury’s consideration of their cases, he points out. When a juvenile offense becomes an element of an adult crime without ever being submitted to a jury, a juvenile’s constitutional right to due process is violated, Buttery argues.

He concludes that a juvenile with an offense in a juvenile court should be able to move into adulthood “without the baggage of youthful mistakes.”

The Ohio Public Defender’s Office and the Children’s Law Center filed a joint amicus brief in support of Buttery’s arguments.

Requirements Are Discretionary and Fair, Prosecutor Maintains
The Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office counters that a juvenile court’s classification of minors as sex offenders is discretionary and can be reconsidered for various reasons. Given that discretion, the registration requirements for juvenile sex offenders are fundamentally fair and don’t violate a juvenile’s due process rights, the prosecutor maintains.

The office also argues that the legislature has the authority to pass laws to protect the public, such as sex-offender registration requirements for juvenile offenders. And, the prosecutor states, it is appropriate for some juvenile offenses to carry consequences that follow into adulthood.

Oral Argument Details
The Supreme Court will consider State v. Buttery and three other appeals on Tuesday, Aug. 6. The Court’s Office of Public Information today released previews of each case. Oral arguments begin at 9 a.m. at the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center in Columbus. All arguments are streamed live online at and broadcast live and archived on The Ohio Channel.

Tuesday, Aug. 6
In 2015, the Ohio Department of Taxation issued a $139,000 public utility excise tax assessment to an interstate pipeline company. The assessment was based on about $2 million in receipts from 36 transactions in which natural gas entered a pipeline in Ohio and was distributed to an end-user in the state. The pipeline company is challenging the tax, noting that 22 of those transactions were related to delivering gas from its pipeline to three other interstate pipelines. In Rockies Express Pipeline v. Testa, the company argues all of its transactions are “interstate” business, not subject to the excise tax, while the state maintains these are taxable “intrastate” transactions.

A man parked in front of a Toledo bowling alley to hang out with two friends. One friend noticed a resident of a home across the street arguing with a woman on the sidewalk. The friend crossed the street and recorded the argument with his phone. The couple told him to leave them alone and the resident went inside, stating he was getting his shotgun. When he returned, the car owner grabbed a pistol, got behind the car, and shot the shotgun holder to death. A jury found the shooter guilty of voluntary manslaughter, but a trial judge found the evidence was insufficient and ordered a new trial. Prosecutors appealed, and the appeals court ruled the judge’s verdict amounted to an acquittal. In State v. Ramirez, the Court will review whether the rules of criminal procedure and state law consider the trial court’s ruling to be a “final verdict” that prosecutors can’t appeal.

In Highland County, a man agreed to a 2009 plea deal in which he pled guilty to eight of 14 sexually oriented offenses and was sentenced to 35 years and 10 months in prison. The court notified him that none of the offenses carried mandatory sentences. However, three of them did. On appeal, the man was told he could withdraw his guilty plea. The prosecutor argues in State v. Straley that despite the court’s error, the man knew how long he was going to prison and he can’t show that the outcome would’ve have been different had he known that that certain sentences were mandatory. The man responds that his plea wasn’t knowing because the court didn’t inform him of the maximum penalty he would receive.