JSORN EXPLAINED:
AN OVERVIEW OF SENATE BILL 10
WHERE WE ARE GOING
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Basics
SCO Decisions / Impact
Hypotheticals
Pending Cases
Assessments
Placement Issues
Impact of Registration
Questions
THE BASICS
Who Must Register?
- All youth 16 or 17 at time of offense
- All youth 14-17 with a prior adjudication
- 14-17 year old serious youthful offenders who are
found delinquent of one of six enumerated offenses
Who Might Register?
- First time 14 and 15 year old offenders
- Court must consider factors in R.C. 2152.83(D) prior
Who Will Not Register?
- Youth who were under 14 at time of offense
REGISTRATION ELIGIBLE OFFENSES
Tier I (for adults)
Tier II (for adults)
Tier III (for adults)
Importuning
Compelling prostitution
Rape
Unlawful sexual conduct
Pandering obscenity involving a minor
Sexual battery
Voyerism
Pandering sexually oriented material
involving a minor
Aggravated murder with sexual
motivation
Sexual Imposition
Illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented
material
Murder with sexual motivation
Gross Sexual Imposition
Unlawful sexual conduct with a minor
when offender is four years older than
victim
Unlawful death or termination of
pregnancy as a result of committing a
felony with sexual motivation
Illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented
material
Gross sexual imposition with victim
under 13
Kidnapping of a minor to engage in
sexual activity
Child enticement with sexual
motivation
Child endangering
Kidnapping of minor, not parent
Pandering obscenity
Kidnapping with sexual motivation
Gross sexual imposition with (B)
specification
Menacing by stalking with sexual
motivation
Abduction with sexual motivation
Felonious assault with sexual motivation
Any offense after offender has already
been classified as tier I
Any offense that occurs after previous
classification as tier II or III
*Offense based classification for adults
only
**Look to the offense of conviction or
adjudication, not the complaint
THE BASICS CONT’D
The Tiers (for Juveniles)
Registration
Level
Frequency of
Registration
Duration of
Registration
Tier I
Annually
Ten years
Tier II
Every 180 days
Twenty years
Tier III
Every 90 days
Until death
PRQJOR
Every 90 days
Until Death
THE BASICS CONT’D
The Tiers (for Adults)
Registration
Level
Frequency of
Registration
Duration of
Registration
Tier I
Annually
Fifteen years
Tier II
Every 180 days
Twenty-five years
Tier III
Every 90 days
Until death
THE BASICS CONT’D
JUVENILE
• Court has discretion to
determine tier level
• No residency restrictions
• Not posted on the web
• Community notification only
applies to certain Tier III JORs
• Only registers in the county
where they live
• Can petition to have
registration modified or
removed
• Is a “juvenile offender
registrant” even after turning
18/21
ADULT
Tiers are offense based
Residency restrictions apply
Posted on eSORN
Community notification
applies to all adult
registrants
• Registers where they live,
work, and attend school
• Cannot petition to have
registration removed
•
•
•
•
THE BASICS
How public is registration?
• No more PRQJOR (no youth should be on
eSORN) In re C.P., 2012-Ohio-1446
• Tier III: Judicial discretion
• Tier I, II, and III: All registrant information is
available via public records request R.C.
2950.081
THE HEARINGS
The Classification Hearing (R.C. 2152.82
or 2152.83)
• For repeat offenders, must happen at disposition
(2152.82)
• For first-time offenders who are 16 or 17 (2152.83(A))
• If committed to a secure facility, upon release
• If not committed to a secure facility, at disposition
• For first-time offenders who are 14 or 15 (2152.83(B))
• Can occur at disposition or upon release from a secure
facility See In re I.A., 2014-Ohio-3155
THE HEARINGS
The End-of-Disposition Hearing (R.C.
2152.84)
• Mandatory hearing required when the child
completes disposition
• Mandatory registrants can step down in tier
• Discretionary registrants can come off the
registry
• Court may not increase registration duties
THE HEARINGS
Petition for Declassification R.C. 2152.85
•
•
•
•
•
Three years after the end of disposition hearing
Registrant must request hearing (not automatic)
Mandatory registrants can come off registry
Court must consider factors in R.C. 2152.83(D)
Court may not increase youth’s registration duties
CASES
State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-242, 933
N.E.2d 753
• Question: whether the reclassification of Megan’s Law
offender registrants under SB 10 was constitutional.
• Held: the retroactive application of SB 10 to persons with
prior Megan’s Law classifications violated separation of
powers.
• Remedy: The reclassification provisions of the statutes
were stricken; former classifications reinstated.
• Implication: No one who was classified under Megan’s
Law prior to January 1, 2008 should have a “tier”
classification under S.B. 10.
CASES
State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952
N.E.2d 1108
• Question: whether the classification of offenders with
pre-SB 10 offenses under SB 10 was constitutional.
• Held: SB 10 is punitive; therefore, the retroactive
application of it to anyone whose offense predates
enactment violates Ohio’s Retroactivity Clause.
• Remedy: registrants are to be given new classification
hearings under the version of the law in effect at the
time of their offense.
• Implication: no one whose offense occurred prior to SB
10’s enactment should be a “tiered” offender registrant.
CASES
In re Bruce S., 134 Ohio St.3d 477, 2012-Ohio-5696, 983
N.E.2d 350
• Clarified that Williams applied to all registrants
whose offenses occurred between SB 10’s
enactment and its effective date.
CASES
In re D.J.S., 130 Ohio St.3d 257, 2011-Ohio-5342, 957
N.E.2d 291
• Question: same as the questions presented in
Williams
• Held: Williams applies to juvenile cases.
• Remedy: Juvenile offenders were to be given the
same remedy as adults – new classification hearings
under the version of the law in effect at the time of
their offense (Megan’s Law).
• One caveat…
CASES
In re J.V., 134 Ohio St.3d 1, 2012-Ohio-4961, 979 N.E.2d
1203
• Question: could a juvenile correct an improperimposed SYO sentence after the juvenile offender
turned 21?
• Held: Juvenile courts do not have jurisdiction to
impose a disposition once a child attains the age of
21.
CASES
Impact of JV on registration cases?
• Juveniles whose cases were remanded under
Williams/DJS were held (if the juvenile offender had
turned 21 already) and their cases were then
remanded for application of Williams and JV
• The juvenile court was without jurisdiction to hold a
Megan’s Law hearing for those juvenile offenders
CASES
State ex rel Pression Jean-Baptiste v. Kirsch, 134 Ohio
St.3d 421, 2012-Ohio-5697, 983 N.E.2d 302
• Question: Did a juvenile court patently and
unambiguously lack jurisdiction to classify a juvenile
offender who had turned 21?
• Held: Juvenile courts lack statutory authority to
classify a child as a juvenile offender registrant after
the child is released from a secure facility,
completes his juvenile disposition, and turns 21.
• Implication: If a child has turned 21 and the court
has not classified him yet, the court is without
jurisdiction to do so.
CASES
In Re J.B., 134 Ohio St.3d 538, 2012-Ohio-5675, 983
N.E.2d 1295
• The Supreme Court applied Jean-Baptiste to a case
where the juvenile had completed his disposition,
but had not yet turned 21 – with the result – the
court was without jurisdiction to classify him.
CASES
State v. Gingell, 128 Ohio St.3d 444, 2011-Ohio-1481, 946
N.E.2d 192
• Question: Can a registrant whose classification was
rendered unconstitutional be responsible for complying
with SB 10’s requirements?
• Held: Because the retroactive application of SB 10 was
unconstitutional, registrants whose offenses occurred
prior to January 1, 2008 are not responsible for
complying with SB 10’s requirements.
• Remedy: Mr. Gingell’s conviction for failing to comply
with SB 10 was vacated.
• Implication: a person with a void SB 10 classification
(under Bodyke or Williams) cannot be charged with
violating SB 10’s failure to register/notify/verify statutes.
CASES
In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513, 2012-Ohio-1446, 967 N.E.2d
729
• Question: Is R.C. 2152.86, which governs the classification
of public registry-qualified juvenile offender registrants
constitutional?
• Held: R.C. 2152.86 violates due process and the
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.
• Remedy: R.C. 2152.86 stricken in its entirety.
• Implication: The PRQJOR classification is not a valid
option for any court. Children with serious youthful
offender specifications (tied to registerable offense) are
classified like any other potential juvenile registrant.
CASES
State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350, 2012-Ohio-5636, 982
N.E.2d 684
• Question: Can a court reopen the evidentiary phase of
the proceedings to prove facts necessary to establish
registration eligibility after sentencing? And, can a court
impose a classification after sentencing?
• Held: A trial court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider a final
judgment in a case and because registration is now
punishment, classifying an offender at any time other
than sentencing violates double jeopardy.
• Remedy: unconstitutional classification vacated
• Implication: classification must occur at sentencing.
CASES
In re I.A., 140 Ohio St.3d 203, 2014-Ohio-3155, 16 N.E.3d 653
• Question: Does the language of R.C. 2152.83(B)
mandate the timing of the classification hearing for first
time 14- and 15-year-old juvenile offenders?
• Held: for discretionary registrants (first time 14- and 15year-old juvenile offenders) classification can occur at
disposition or upon release from a secure facility.
• Implication: this applies to the hearing conducted under
R.C. 2152.83(B) only; the language in 2152.83(A) for 16and 17-year-old first-time offenders mandates the timing
of the hearing.
HYPO
At 12 years old, Julie was charged with gross sexual
imposition for allegedly touching her 5 year old sister.
She admitted to the offense and was placed on
probation. 10 months later she was charged with
statutory rape of her 9 year old cousin. The court
imposed a commitment to a community corrections
facility; and, after a year, she was released. Upon
her release from the CCF, the court held a hearing
and imposed a tier II classification on Julie.
Is there anything wrong with the court’s order?
HYPO
Yes: Julie was not eligible for classification. Her first
offense occurred when she was 12. Even though she
picked up a subsequent charge, it occurred when
she was either 12 or 13. Since children under 14 are
not eligible for registration. The juvenile court did not
have authority to classify her.
HYPO
Evan admitted to three counts of rape and one
count of gsi for acts that occurred when he was 13.
He was not adjudicated delinquent for those offenses
until he was 14. He was committed to DYS. While in
DYS, he admitted to three more offenses, involving
three other victims. They all occurred prior to the
offenses for which he was serving his commitment.
Do the new offenses make him eligible to be a
registrant?
HYPO
No.
The code requires classification for repeat offenders if they
have a “prior adjudication.” Even though Evan was 14
when he admitted to the other offenses, he is not eligible
for classification for two reasons: 1) he was under 14 when
his prior offenses occurred; and 2) even though he
committed prior offenses, they were simply prior offenses
that had not been charged, not prior adjudications. The
code envisions mandatory registrants being youth who
commit a new offense following an adjudication, not
youth who had unreported priors that are discovered
during treatment.
HYPO
DeMarco was adjudicated delinquent of a sexually
oriented offense following a sexting scandal at
school. He was 15 at the time.
He was placed on probation; and, one year later,
when he was 16, he was charged with the forcible
rape of a peer. He was sent to DYS without being
classified. When he was released, the juvenile court
held a classification hearing and found him to be a
tier III.
Is there anything wrong with the court’s order?
HYPO
Yes.
Because DeMarco was a repeat offender, his
classification should have occurred at disposition for
the rape.
HYPO
Andrew admitted to two counts of rape for offenses that
occurred when he was 17 years old. He was committed
to DYS for two years. In DYS, he was a model youth. He
sailed through treatment, made great grades, and was a
low security youth. He did so well, the court released him
early. Following his release, the court held a classification
hearing, where it received and reviewed his treatment
records, which were brilliant, and a risk assessment that
showed he was a low risk to reoffend. The court classifies
him as a tier I juvenile offender registrant.
Is that permitted under the law?
HYPO
Yes, juvenile courts (unlike criminal courts) have
discretion to determine a juvenile offender’s tier level.
The court is required to consider the results of
treatment, professional assessments, the juvenile
offender’s remorse, etc., to determine tier. Given how
well Andrew did, the court was within statutory
permission to classify him as a tier I.
HYPO
When Lance was 18, he was adjudicated delinquent
of a gross sexual imposition that he committed when
he was 16. He was committed to DYS and, as a result
of getting multiple write-ups for non-sexual bad
behavior, he was held until he turned 21 and DYS was
required to release him. Upon his release (his 21st
birthday), the juvenile court classifies him as a tier II
juvenile offender registrant.
Was this lawful?
HYPO
No. Under Jean-Baptiste and JV, because he turned
21, he was no longer a child under R.C. 2152.02(C);
and therefore, the court was without jurisdiction to
classify him.
PENDING ISSUES
In re D.S. is pending in the Supreme Court as Case No.
2014-0607
• Issue one: after a discretionary registrant’s release from
DYS, may the juvenile court reopen the case to prove
additional facts necessary to establish whether the child
was age eligible for registration at the time of his
offense?
• Issue two: because registration is punishment, do the
provisions of SB 10 which allow juvenile courts to classify
a child upon his release from a secure facility violate
double jeopardy?
• Issue three: because registration is punishment, can a
child’s registration extend beyond the age jurisdiction of
the juvenile court?
PENDING ISSUES
In re M.R., pending as Case No. 2014-1315
• Do the mandatory registration requirements in R.C.
2152.83(A) (mandatory registration of 16- and 17year-olds violate equal protection?
ASSESSMENTS
• ERASOR: Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual
Offenders
• J-SORRAT-II: Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk
Assessment Tool
• SAVRY: Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in
Youth
• J-SOAP-II: Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment
Protocol
J-SOAP-II – THE MOST COMMON
“A checklist to aid in the systemic review of risk factors
identified in professional literature as being associated
with sexual and criminal offending. It is designed to
be used with boys in the age range of 12 to 18 who
have been adjudicated for sexual offense, as well as
nonadjudicated youths with a history of sexually
coercive behavior.” (J-SOAP-II Manual, 2003)
HOW IT IS SCORED
23 items, split into 4 scales
Each item is a risk factor scored 0, 1, or 2.
0 = apparent absence of item
1 = presence of some info that suggests presence of
the item, but it is “too sketchy” to justify a score of 2
• 2 = clear presence of item
•
•
•
•
J-SOAP-II SUMMARY SCORE
Static Score is the majority of
the score (32 items vs. 24
items)
Total:
Avg. score= 21, no offending
Avg. score= 30, did reoffend
(J-SOAP-II Manual, 2003)
ITEMS FROM SCALES 1 & 2
1
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prior legally charged sex offenses
Number of sexual abuse victims
Male child victim
Duration of sexual offense history
Degree of planning in sexual offense(s)
Sexualized aggression
Sexual drive and preoccupation
Sexual victimization history
Caregiver Consistency
Pervasive anger
School behavior problems
History of conduct disorder before age 10
Juvenile antisocial behavior (age 10-17)
Ever charged/arrested before age 16
Multiple types of offenses
Physical assault history and/or exposure to family
violence
PLACEMENT ISSUES
• What type of facility is the child being
released to?
• Does the facility have restrictions that could
impact registration?
IMPACT OF REGISTRATION
• In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513, 2012-Ohio-1446, 967 N.E.2d 729
• Human Rights Watch: Raised on the Registry – available at:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/05/01/raisedregistry/irreparable-harm-placing-children-sex-offenderregistries-us
• Harris, A.J., Walfield, S., Shields, R.T., & Letourneau, E.J.,
Collateral Consequences of Juvenile Sex Offender Registration
and Notification: Results from a Survey of Treatment Providers,
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 1-22
(2015).
QUESTIONS?
MORE QUESTIONS?
Also, feel free to contact us at:
Office of the Ohio Public Defender
Brooke M. Burns
Brooke.Burns@opd.ohio.gov
614.466.5394
Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office
Christine S. Julian
cjulian@franklincountyohio.gov
614.525.3901