State v. T.S., 255 N.E.3d 801 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
In State v. T.S., the Ohio Court of Appeals ruled the juvenile court abused its discretion when it transferred T.S.’s case to adult court pursuant to R.C. 2152.12(B) (Ohio’s discretionary transfer law). The court found the evidence presented in the transfer hearing, did not support a finding that T.S. was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system.
The court offers the following language in support of its decision::
“Few, if any, determinations are more significant in the life of an accused juvenile offender than whether he or she will be tried in an adult court. See, e.g., State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-274, ¶ 21 (“‘The transfer hearing implicates far more significant issues than the venue or forum of trial; it serves as a vehicle by which a child offender is deprived of the rehabilitation and treatment potential of the juvenile-justice system.’”), quoting State v. Aalim, 2017-Ohio-2956, ¶ 73 (O’Connor, C.J., dissenting). Because of the “tremendous consequences” following a decision that a child must lose the protections of the juvenile system and face trial as an adult, 3 Although neither party raised the issue, we note that there is an error in the trial court’s October 26, 2023 sentencing journal entry. The sentencing journal entry states: “Counts #1, #2 to run consecutive.” T.S., however, was sentenced on Counts 1 and 4; Count 2 was nolled. The trial court correctly imposed consecutive sentences on Counts 1 and 4 at the sentencing hearing. This error could, therefore, be remedied by a nunc pro tunc entry. However, given our resolution of T.S.’s assignment of error, it is moot. a bindover proceeding — a “critically important” stage in juvenile proceedings —must “measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment.” Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 560-562 (1966); see also In re D.M., 2014-Ohio-3628, ¶ 11.
. . .
However, even if the juvenile court had made the requisite findings under R.C. 2152.12(B)(3), we would reach the same result. Following a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence presented at the amenability hearing does not support a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that T.S. was not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system.
Let there be no doubt. We acknowledge that the offenses with which T.S. has been charged are very serious. It is alleged that when he was 15 years old, T.S. shot a 13-year-old child, causing him serious, life-long injuries. But the seriousness of T.S.’s alleged offenses cannot be the only consideration in determining whether T.S. was properly bound over to adult court. Were it otherwise, the General Assembly would have made such cases subject to mandatory transfer.
We take our responsibility reviewing cases involving the discretionary transfer of juvenile cases to adult court very seriously. In the past decade, Cuyahoga County has consistently bound over more children to adult court than any other Ohio county. In 2023, nearly one-third of all children transferred to adult court in the State of Ohio were in Cuyahoga County. In 2023, Cuyahoga County transferred more children to adult court than Franklin, Hamilton and Summit counties combined. Most of those children — over 90 percent in the last decade and over 91 percent in 2023 — are black. Nearly all of them are male. DataOhio, Youth Transferred to Adult Court, https://data.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/data/view/you th-transferred-to-adult-court (accessed Sept. 4, 2024). These statistics are concerning — particularly given the consequences of a transfer order. As the Ohio Supreme Court has stated,
Research has shown that transferring a youth to adult court can have long-lasting negative impacts, including increased recidivism, a higher likelihood of physical and sexual abuse throughout their stay in prison, a significantly increased risk of suicide, inability to access appropriate education, and being subjected to harmful isolation. Research recommends transferring youth to the adult court system rarely.
Ohio Supreme Court, Youth in Adult Court (2018), https://www.supremecourt.ohi o.gov/JCS/CFC/resources/juvenileBenchCards/8youthAdultCourt.pdf (accessed Sept. 4, 2024) [https://perma.cc/ZUU7-C6KK], citing Children’s Law Center, Falling Through the Cracks: A New Look at Ohio Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System (2012), available at nicic.gov/library/026406 (reporting that youth who are bound over and sentenced to prison are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted and two times more likely to be physically attacked by other inmates or injuries by staff, that youth in adult prisons are eight times more likely to commit suicide than youth held in juvenile detention centers and that, on average, children who are prosecuted as adults are 34 percent more likely to commit additional felonies than children who commit similar offenses but remain in the juvenile system).”
