State v. Middleton

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 1308

Syllabus

The trial court did not violate Evid.R. 404(B) by admitting evidence of other acts of violence in connection with appellant's domestic violence charge. Appellant raised the affirmative defense of reasonable parental discipline, and in assessing this defense, the fact-finder was permitted to consider the child's behavioral history and response to prior discipline. Even if this were otherwise, any error would be harmless because the evidence of appellant's violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) was overwhelming. Furthermore, treating reasonable parental discipline as an affirmative defense does not violate due process by unconstitutionally placing the burden of proof on the defendant. The Supreme Court of Ohio specifically rejected this contention in State v. Faggs, Ohio Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-523, __ N.E.3d __. Finally, the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the misdemeanor charge of child endangering under R.C. 2919.22(B)(1) because R.C. 2151.23(A)(6) gives the juvenile court exclusive original jurisdiction over such charges. Appellant's conviction for child endangering, therefore, is void and is vacated. Because the domestic violence conviction, which is affirmed, was merged into the child endangering charge, this case will be remanded for a new sentencing hearing on the domestic violence conviction. Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.