Phipps v. State

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 720
• 107 N.E.3d 754

Syllabus

SEX OFFENSES - OUT-OF-STATE OFFENDER - PROOF OF CONVICTION - SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT - DUTY TO REGISTER: The trial court did not err in finding that the state was not required to prove defendant's New York conviction for a sexually-oriented offense with a document that complied with R.C. 2945.75(B) and Crim.R. 32(C): the procedures under former R.C. Chapter 2950 were civil in nature, and former R.C. 2950.07(F) did not require the state to prove the out-of-state sex offense in the same way it would have had to prove a prior conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case where the prior conviction was an element of a new criminal offense or was required to elevate the level of a crime or enhance a sentence. The trial court erred in holding that defendant's New York conviction for sexual misconduct required him to register as a sex offender in Ohio, because the New York sexual-misconduct statute is not substantially equivalent to Ohio's unlawful-sexual-conduct-with-a-minor statute, R.C. 2907.04(A): the Ohio statute applies to persons over 18, while the New York statute does not set an age limit for the perpetrator Ohio's law prohibits sexual conduct with a victim between the ages of 13 and 15, while the New York prohibition extends to a victim under the age of 17 Ohio requires that the perpetrator knew the age of the victim or was reckless in that regard, while New York does not require a mens rea and the Ohio offense is a felony, while the New York offense is a misdemeanor. [But see DISSENT: The two statutes are substantially equivalent because they both criminalize sex with a teenager regardless of consent. Further, the New York statute is substantially equivalent to Ohio's sexual-imposition offense, R.C. 2907.06(A)(4).]