State v. Noggle
| Decision Date | 04 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-412,92-412 |
| Citation | 615 N.E.2d 1040,67 Ohio St.3d 31 |
| Parties | , 83 Ed. Law Rep. 720 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. NOGGLE, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. The phrase "person in loco parentis" in R.C. 2907.03(A)(5) applies to a person who has assumed the dominant parental role and is relied upon by the child for support.
2. Indictments based upon an alleged offender's status as a person in loco parentis should at least state the very basic facts upon which that alleged status is based.
Defendant-appellee, Dale G. Noggle, a high school teacher and coach, was charged with sexual battery as a result of sexual conduct he allegedly engaged in with a student. He was specifically charged with violating R.C. 2907.03(A)(5), which provides as follows:
The indictment returned against Noggle alleged that an in loco parentis relationship existed between Noggle and the student, but did not specify the nature or underlying basis of that relationship. An amended bill of particulars specified in pertinent part as follows:
" * * * the said Dale G. Noggle being a person in loco parentis of said * * *, and the said Dale G. Noggle being such a person in loco parentis by virtue of his position as a teacher and school coach * * *."
The trial court granted Noggle's motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that a teacher and coach is not, as a matter of law, a person in loco parentis for purposes of the sexual battery statute. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal.
The cause is before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion for leave to appeal.
Lowell S. Petersen, Ottawa County Pros. Atty., and Mark E. Mulligan, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellant.
Gordon A. Senerius, Toledo, for appellee.
What Dale Noggle is accused of doing is wrong in the eyes of his profession and in the eyes of society. What Dale Noggle is accused of doing, however, is not considered a criminal wrong by the state of Ohio. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
Consensual sexual conduct between persons over sixteen years of age, as was apparently the situation in this case, is generally legal in Ohio. The intent of R.C. 2907.03 is to forbid sexual conduct in a variety of situations where the offender takes unconscionable advantage of the victim. The complete list of situations stated in the statute is relevant to an analysis of the claim against Noggle. The statute reads:
The General Assembly envisioned a variety of specific situations where an offender might take unconscionable advantage of a victim. The teacher-student relationship is not, however, included as one of those situations. That fact is telling. The statute is very specific, going so far as to forbid sexual conduct between prison workers and prisoners as well as between hospital workers and patients. Had the General Assembly sought to forbid sexual conduct between teachers and students, it would have done so specifically.
The prosecutor in this case creatively attempted to include teachers within the definition of a "person in loco parentis" under R.C. 2907.03(A)(5). However, the intent of the legislature was not to include teachers under that part of the statute. The Committee Comment to H.B. No. 511 discusses how (A)(5) fits within the rest of the statute: "Incestuous conduct is also included, though defined in broader terms than formerly, so as to include not only sexual conduct by a parent with his child, but also sexual conduct by a step-parent with his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowe v. Swanson, No. 5:08 CV 686.
...See Ohio Rev.Code § 2907.03(A). Its purpose is "quite obviously designed to be Ohio's criminal incest statute." State v. Noggle, 67 Ohio St.3d 31, 33, 615 N.E.2d 1040, 1993-Ohio-189 (1993). Lowe exhausted his state court appeals, and was unable to convince the Ohio Supreme Court that he has......
-
Evans v. Ohio State Univ.
...Stephanie from the sexual attack of Waites. Plaintiffs argue that the Court of Claims improperly relied upon State v. Noggle (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 31, 615 N.E.2d 1040, in finding that an in loco parentis relationship did not The term "in loco parentis" has been defined as "the relationship ......
-
State v. Powers
...the term "in loco parentis" as being "charged, factitiously, with a parent's rights, duties, and responsibilities." State v. Noggle, 67 Ohio St.3d 31, 33, 1993-Ohio-189, 615 N.E.2d 1040, citing Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.1990) 787, superseded by statute on other grounds. "A person in lo......
-
State v. Mole
...law, to stand in loco parentis for purposes of subdivision (A)(5) based solely on his or her role as a teacher. State v. Noggle, 67 Ohio St.3d 31, 34, 615 N.E.2d 1040 (1993). We held that the General Assembly had chosen to enumerate "specific situations where an offender might take unconsci......