Cope v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 13 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 38118,38118 |
| Citation | 175 Ohio St. 475,196 N.E.2d 457 |
| Parties | , 26 O.O.2d 88 COPE, Appellant, v. CAMPBELL, Sheriff, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Proceedings in the Juvenile Court are civil in nature and not criminal. Section 2151.35, Revised Code, implies protection for the minor and not punishment.
2. Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, being applicable only to the rights of accused persons charged with criminal offenses, do not apply to, or require the appointment of counsel in, a delinquent-child proceeding in the Juvenile Court.
On October 2, 1961, Roy Cope, appellant herein, a 17-year-old boy, was brought before the Juvenile Court of Summit County upon the complaint of the director of casework service of the Juvenile Court. The mother was notified by personal service to appear at the hearing, but she did not appear. The Juvenile Court, at an ex parte hearing, heard the testimony regarding the complaint and found that the appellant was a delinquent child in that he committed an act of malicious entry; that he was over 16 years of age and committed such act after he was of such age; and that the act committed, if committed by an adult, would be a felony. The court found further that it had jurisdiction over him. The court then committed the appellant to the Ohio State Reformatory under the provisions of Section 2151.35(E), Revised Code.
Subsequently, appellant instituted a habeas corpus proceeding in the Court of Appeals to secure his release from custody. He claims that the order committing him to the Ohio State Reformatory was void; that the court lacked jurisdiction in the matter because it did not provide him with legal counsel; and that the court did not advise him prior to the hearing as to his constitutional rights in the premises.
The Court of Appeals remanded the petitioner to custody, and the cause is here on an appeal as of right.
Louis A. Dirker, Akron, for appellant.
John S. Ballard, Pros. Atty., and John D. Smith, Akron, for appellee.
None of the material facts in this case seem to be in dispute. The Juvenile Court did not provide appellant with legal counsel; it did not advise him of his constitutional rights prior to the hearing; and it did not inform him that he could have an attorney to represent him if he so wished. Petitioner admits that he did not request an attorney to represent him.
The proceeding in the Juvenile Court was informal in nature, and the court proceeded under Section 2151.35, Revised Code, which reads in part as follows:
'The court shall hear and determine all cases of children without a jury. If the court finds that the child is a juvenile traffic offender or is delinquent, neglected, or dependent, it may by order entered proceed as follows:
'* * * '(E) Commit a male child over sixteen years of age who has committed an act which if committed by an adult would be a felony to the Ohio state reformatory.'
The evidence shows that the appellant is a proper subject of commitment to the Ohio State Reformatory. He was at the time an incorrigible juvenile, with a record of delinquency and derelictions that led the court to the conclusion that recommitment of him to the Boys Industrial School at Lancaster would not correct him, and the court in its sound discretion committed him to the Ohio State Reformatory.
The appellant contends that Section 2151.35 (E), Revised Code, is unconstitutional in that it permits the commitment of a delinquent child, without an indictment or a jury trial, and thus violates the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. These constitutional provisions relate to the preservation of the right of trial by jury and to the right of the accused in a criminal prosecution. There can be no question that a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to be represented by counsel.
Proceedings in a Juvenile Court are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morgan
...proceedings{¶ 42} In 1962, this court recognized that juvenile proceedings were civil, not criminal, in nature. Cope v. Campbell , 175 Ohio St. 475, 196 N.E.2d 457 (1964), paragraph one of the syllabus. In Cope , a juvenile court adjudicated a minor delinquent for an act of malicious entry ......
-
In re C.S.
...{¶ 76} For example, although we often characterize juvenile proceedings as civil rather than criminal, Cope v. Campbell (1964), 175 Ohio St. 475, 26 O.O.2d 88, 196 N.E.2d 457, paragraph one of the State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437, 2002-Ohio-5059, 775 N.E.2d 829, ¶ 25, we recognize that "[w......
-
Agler, In re
...re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527. Section 2151.351, Revised Code. Paragraph two of the syllabus of Cope v. Campbell, 175 Ohio St. 475, 195 N.E.2d 475, 2. Delinquency proceedings in Juvenile Court do not require indictment or trial by jury under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourte......
-
State v. Bloomer
...{¶ 54} Although this court has previously characterized juvenile delinquency proceedings as civil in nature, Cope v. Campbell (1964), 175 Ohio St. 475, 26 O.O.2d 88, 196 N.E.2d 457, paragraph one of the syllabus, we have long recognized that such proceedings also possess inherently criminal......