The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld a rape adjudication of a teen in a youth home for pressuring another teen into having intercourse and restraining him during the act.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rejected the boy’s argument that he did not use physical force to compel his housemate to have sex, but only verbally persuaded him, which falls short of rape under state law.

Writing for the Court, Justice Jennifer Brunner stated that “any violence, compulsion or constraint” constitutes “force” under Ohio law, and the Court has recognized that only “minimal force” is necessary for a rape conviction. The teens were identified in court records by the fictional names “Paul” and “Charles,” and a juvenile court found Paul used force to compel Charles to submit to sexual conduct.

“The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul compelled or constrained Charles in order to engage in sex with Charles without his consent,” Justice Brunner wrote.

Sex Crimes at Youth Home Alleged
In 2021, Paul, a 14-year-old resident of Warren County, was placed in a youth home in Hamilton County. Charles, who was 15, lived in the same facility. The Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office filed complaints with the Hamilton County Juvenile Court alleging Paul committed six counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition.

At an adjudication hearing before a juvenile court magistrate, Kelvin Satterwhite, a youth home employee, stated he reported the sexual activity between the two boys to authorities. Satterwhite testified that he overheard Paul and Charles through a video monitor and Charles say, “[N]o, I’m not gonna do it, because I gave you oral sex twice already.” Satterwhite heard Paul say, “[B]ut I want you, and I want you now.”

Satterwhite then went looking for the boys and found them behind a shed at the back of the youth home. Paul was behind Charles, who was bent over, and Paul had both hands around Charles’ waist, pulling Charles toward him. Satterwhite testified that Charles looked like “he was scared that it was happening to him.”

Charles testified that he and Paul shared a room and became friends. When asked about the event behind the shed, Charles told the magistrate it was something he did not want to do. He stated, “I think I was forced to, to my understanding.”

When asked by the prosecutor how he was forced, Charles explained that Paul held his legs and hovered over him. When asked if he tried to make Paul stop, Charles said he did and testified he told Paul, “I don’t want to do it” but that Paul kept asking him to continue.

Charles acknowledged that he did not want to get into trouble for fear he would be moved to another group home, which would have been his third move. Charles agreed that Paul “never threatened” him and “never hurt” him. He conceded he agreed to the act because Paul convinced him by “asking and asking.”

After Charles’ testimony, Paul’s attorney asked that the charges be dismissed. He argued the prosecution may have proved that Paul “persuaded” Charles to engage in sex with him, but had not established that Paul “forced” Charles to do so.

Magistrate Finds Teen To Be Delinquent
The magistrate found that Paul committed two offenses that would be rape if he were an adult. Paul was adjudicated a delinquent child, and the magistrate dismissed all remaining charges.

Paul objected to the magistrate’s decision, arguing the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the element of force required for a conviction under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), which states that no person “shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.”

A juvenile judge adopted the magistrate’s decision, and Paul was transferred to his home county. The Warren County Juvenile Court committed Paul to the custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services for an indefinite term consisting of a minimum period of one year in detention.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the delinquency adjudication. The Twelfth District recognized a reasonable trier of fact could have decided the case either way. However, the appeals court would not scrutinize the trial court's reasoning for adjudicating Paul delinquent.

Paul appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing he could not be convicted of rape if the only evidence of force was the “physical exertion inherent in the sexual act itself.”

Supreme Court Analyzed Rape Law
Justice Brunner explained that although juvenile courts are not meant to function as adult courts, juveniles are afforded the same protections as adult criminal defendants. The prosecutor was required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the charged crime, she stated.

Because Paul challenged whether the juvenile court had sufficient evidence to find him delinquent, the Supreme Court must determine “whether the evidence presented, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would allow any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

At issue in the case was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul used force to commit rape, the opinion stated. Based on Charles’ comments, the “threat of force” was not considered, the Court noted.

Paul argued that “force” under the rape law requires proof of physically exerting “violence, compulsion, or constraint.” He argued he did not use any physical exertion to overcome Charles’ will but only convinced him to engage in sexual conduct. The only physical exertion the prosecution proved was the physical exertion of the conduct that Satterwhite witnessed, Paul asserted.

The Court rejected Paul’s argument that there is a distinction between the force used to compel a victim to submit to sexual conduct and the force used in performing the sexual conduct itself.

“But here, the evidence in the record does not support reviewing this case for such a distinction with respect to force in the context of rape,” the Court stated.

The Court found that the law prohibits “compulsion,” and that “compel” is defined by dictionaries to include “to cause or to do or occur by overwhelming pressure.” And “constrain” means “to force by imposed stricture, restriction, or limitation” or “to grasp tightly.”

The evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find Paul committed rape by compelling or constraining Charles into sexual conduct without his consent, the Court concluded.

2023-1531. In re P.M.S., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1543.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.