State v. Thompson
Decision Date | 22 August 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 00-1555.,00-1555. |
Citation | 92 Ohio St.3d 584,752 NE 2d 276 |
Parties | THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. THOMPSON, APPELLEE. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Davies, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and David M. Gormley, State Solicitor, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Attorney General of Ohio.
Defendant-appellee, David M. Thompson, was convicted of rape, aggravated robbery, and felonious assault. In March 1975, he was sentenced to prison terms of four to twenty-five years for rape, four to twenty-five years for aggravated robbery, and two to fifteen years for felonious assault, all sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant was later paroled, but he violated the terms of his parole and was reincarcerated. On September 24, 1999, the trial court conducted a sexual predator hearing pursuant to R.C. 2950.09 due to defendant's rape conviction. The trial court found that the defendant is a sexual predator.
The defendant appealed the trial court's sexual predator determination. The appellate court, following its own decision in State v. White (Nov. 5, 1999), Miami App. No. 98-CA-37, unreported, 1999 WL 1000000, held that R.C. 2950.09 violates the separation-of-powers doctrine by usurping the trial court's fact-finding role because it prescribes what evidence trial courts must consider in determining whether a sexual offender is likely to reoffend. Thus, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause with the instruction that the trial court "may, but is not required, to consider any of the statutory factors in R.C. 2950.09(B)(2)."
This cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a discretionary appeal.
The sole issue before this court is whether R.C. 2950.09 violates the separationof-powers doctrine because it encroaches upon the judiciary's fact-finding authority. We find that it does not.
It is well settled that legislation enjoys a presumption of constitutionality. State ex rel. Haylett v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 325, 328, 720 N.E.2d 901, 904. A statute will be given a constitutional interpretation if one is reasonably available. State v. Keenan (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 133, 150, 689 N.E.2d 929, 946. The constitutional presumption remains unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation is unconstitutional. State v. Williams (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 513, 521, 728 N.E.2d 342, 352.
The separation-of-powers doctrine implicitly arises from our tripartite democratic form of government and recognizes that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our government have their own unique powers and duties that are separate and apart from the others. See Zanesville v. Zanesville Tel. & Telegraph Co. (1900), 63 Ohio St. 442, 59 N.E. 109, paragraph one of the syllabus. The purpose of the separation-of-powers doctrine is to create a system of checks and balances so that each branch maintains its integrity and independence. State v. Hochhausler (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 455, 463, 668 N.E.2d 457, 466, citing S. Euclid v. Jemison (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 157, 159, 28 OBR 250, 252, 503 N.E.2d 136, 138.
Under our Constitution, the General Assembly is vested with the power to make laws. Section 1, Article II, Ohio Constitution. Its lawmaking power is limited only by the state and federal Constitutions. Angell v. Toledo (1950), 153 Ohio St. 179, 181, 41 O.O. 217, 218, 91 N.E.2d 250, 251. The Ohio Constitution prevents the General Assembly from exercising "any judicial power, not herein expressly conferred." Section 32, Article II, Ohio Constitution.
Conversely, courts "possess all powers necessary to secure and safeguard the free and untrammeled exercise of their judicial functions and cannot be directed, controlled or impeded therein by other branches of the government." State ex rel. Johnston v. Taulbee (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 417, 20 O.O.3d 361, 423 N.E.2d 80, paragraph two of the syllabus, approving and following State ex rel. Foster v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 89, 45 O.O.2d 442, 242 N.E.2d 884, paragraph two of the syllabus. "It is indisputable that it is a judicial function to hear and determine a controversy between adverse parties, to ascertain the facts, and, applying the law to the facts, to render a final judgment." Fairview v. Giffee (1905), 73 Ohio St. 183, 190, 76 N.E. 865, 867.
We start our separation-of-powers analysis by examining the language of R.C. 2950.09(B)(2), which states:
The appellate court held that R.C. 2950.09(B)(2) violates the separation-ofpowers doctrine because it prescribes evidence that the court must consider in determining whether an offender is a sexual predator. We disagree with this interpretation.
We find that the factors listed in R.C. 2950.09(B)(2) are guidelines that serve an important function by providing a framework to assist judges in determining whether a defendant, who committed a sexually oriented offense, is a sexual predator. These guidelines provide consistency in the reasoning process. Without such guidelines, judges would be left in uncharted waters and decisions on whether a defendant was a sexual predator could vary widely depending on a judge's own viewpoint on the issue.
However, these guidelines do not control a judge's discretion. R.C. 2950.09(B)(2) requires a court to "consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to, all of the following factors." This language requires the court to "consider" the factors listed in R.C. 2950.09(B)(2), but does not direct the court on what weight, if any, it must assign to each factor.1 Such an interpretation makes sense because determining recidivism is at best an imperfect science and while the guidelines set forth potentially relevant factors, some may not be applicable in every case. Thus, R.C. 2950.09(B)(2) does not divest a court of its fact-finding powers in assessing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Delvallie
...to the facts, to render a final judgment." Fairview v. Giffee , 73 Ohio St. 183, 190, 76 N.E. 865, 867 (1905). State v. Thompson , 92 Ohio St.3d 584, 586, 752 N.E.2d 276 (2001).{¶ 36} Delvallie relies on State ex rel. Bray v. Russell , 89 Ohio St.3d 132, 729 N.E.2d 359 (2000), also cited in......
-
State v. Delvallie
...functions and cannot be directed, controlled or impeded therein by other branches of the government.’ " State v. Thompson , 92 Ohio St.3d 584, 586, 752 N.E.2d 276 (2001), quoting State ex rel. Johnston v. Taulbee, 66 Ohio St. 2d 417, 423 N.E.2d 80 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus, appr......
-
The State of Ohio v. BODYKE
...vagueness. Id. at 528-534. {¶ 10} The following year, we were confronted with a separation-of-powers argument in State v. Thompson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 584, 752 N.E.2d 276. We rejected it unanimously. {¶ 11} Thompson addressed whether former R.C. 2950.09(B)(2) violated “the separation-of-p......
-
State v. Basham, 2007 Ohio 6995 (Ohio App. 12/26/2007)
...768 N.E.2d 1207. The court has discretion to determine what weight, if any, it will assign to each statutory guideline. State v. Thompson 92 Ohio St.3d 584, 2001-Ohio-1288, 752 N.E.2d 276. The trial court does not need to find a majority of the R.C. 2950.09(B)(2) factors to support a sexual......