In re D.C., 2025 Ohio 5147 (Ohio 2025)

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, held that the trial court erred when it did not permit D.C. an opportunity to speak on his own behalf during the dispositional hearing, particularly when the trial court emphasized D.C.’s purported lack of remorse.

The court stated in relevant part: “While appellant’s counsel spoke on his behalf, his remarks suggested that he expected the juvenile court to permit allocution. Referring to his client, counsel indicated that “he’ll explain, Your Honor,” that he “wants to take full responsibility.” (Apr. 24, 2025 tr. 17-18.) Appellant had just heard extremely moving victim-impact statements recounting lives devastated by his actions. The juvenile court nevertheless gave appellant no opportunity to address the court, personally and directly, to express remorse for his actions or to respond to the overarching theme that he did not accept responsibility. The juvenile court’s remarks before announcing its disposition were more terse than in In re S.D., 2014-Ohio-2528 (8th Dist.), but they included the statement this was “not the first time” that the court had “dealt with an offender . . . who denied what happened, and yet at the same time admitted what happened.” (Apr. 24, 2025 tr. 22.)

The juvenile court erroneously deprived appellant of his “last opportunity to plead his case or express remorse.” J.P., 2006-Ohio-4590, at ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). In light of the heavy emphasis during the dispositional hearing on appellant’s purported lack of remorse and the juvenile court’s explicit reference to his continued denials, we cannot find that the error was harmless. The juvenile court’s failure to afford appellant an opportunity to speak on his own behalf prior to disposition requires reversal. On remand, the juvenile court must advise appellant of his right to allocution and afford appellant the opportunity to speak prior to disposition. “