Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

22 Ohio St. 3d 78

Peck v. Marshall

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1986

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1986-02-05

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1986

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““(A) The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction under the Revised Code: * * “(5) To hear and determine all criminal cases charging adults with the violation of any section of Chapter 2151 of the Revised Code [.]””

quoted by 1 later decision, including State ex rel. McMinn v. Whitfield

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-02-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The issue is whether the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine cases of adults charged with sexual activity with a minor in violation of R.C. Chapter 2907 (sex offenses) where such offenses might also constitute a violation of R.C. Chapter 2151 (juvenile court). Our answer is in the negative.

¶2Appellant relies on R.C. 2151.23(A)(5) which reads:

“The Juvenile Court has exclusive original jurisdiction under the Revised Code:
ff* …
“(5) To hear and determine all criminal cases charging adults with the violation of any section of Chapter 2151 of the Revised Code.”

¶3Appellant was charged with and convicted of three counts of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02. R.C. 2151.23 is the legislative enactment conferring jurisdiction on the juvenile court and such enactment explicitly limits the court “[t]o hear and determine all criminal cases charging adults with the violation of any section of Chapter 2151 of the Revised Code.” While appellant might, for example, have been charged with and convicted of abusing a child under R.C. 2151.41, the fact is that he was not. R.C. 2151.23(A)(5) thus contradicts, rather than supports, appellant’s contention.

¶4Inasmuch as appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court of common pleas, a court of competent jurisdiction, the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint is affirmed.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.
/22/ohiost3d/78 · .json · Public domain