Walker v. Stokes
| Citation | 45 Ohio App.2d 275,344 N.E.2d 159 |
| Parties | , 74 O.O.2d 402 WALKER, Appellee, v. STOKES, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 10 April 1975 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The State of Ohio having granted by statute (R.C. 3111.16) to all defendants in bastardy proceedings, which are 'quasi criminal' in nature, the right to a blood test to determine paternity, cannot deny this right to those defendants who are unable to pay the required fee in advance, without violating the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, because such a defendant's ability to pay in advance bears no rational relationship to his guilt or innocence and, to discriminate upon this basis constitutes that type of invidious discrimination which is constitutionally prohibited. It is mandatory that the trial court tax as costs the expense of a blood test requested by appropriate motion by an indigent in a bastardy action.
Thomas E. Frye, Cleveland, for appellee.
Cornelius A. Manly, Cleveland, for appellant.
On May 18, 1973, the plaintiff appellee, Janice Walker, filed a complaint in bastardy against the defendant appellant, Keith Stokes, in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court. A preliminary examination was held on October 31, 1973. On November 29, 1973, the defendant appellant filed a Motion for Blood Grouping Test pursuant to R.C. 3111.16. Filed with the motion was a prayer that the costs of said blood test be taxed as costs because the defendant appellant was indigent. Affidavits of indigency also accompanied the motion. On December 19, 1973 the trial court granted the motion for the blood test, but denied the request to tax the test as costs. The defendant appellant was unable to pay the $101 as required by Rule 11* of the Rules of Juvenile Court of Cuyahoga County and no blood test was taken. A jury trial was held and on May 17, 1974 the jury found the defendant appellant guilty and he was adjudged by the court to be the reputed father of the plaintiff-appellee's illegitimate child born on October 25, 1971.
The defendant appellant filed a notice of appeal and presents one assignment of error:
'It is a denial of due process of law and equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny an indigent defendant's timely motion for costs of a blood grouping test to be taxed as court costs in a bastardy proceeding commenced against him under R.C. 3111.01.'
We find the assignment of error to be well taken.
It has been recognized in Ohio that bastardy proceedings are 'quasi criminal' in nature, State ex rel. Gill v. Volz (1951), 156 Ohio St. 60, 100 N.E.2d 203. This being true we must closely scrutinize these proceedings to insure that they measure up to modern constitutional standards relative to equal protection and fair trial.
R.C. 3111.16 states in pertinent part that:
'Whenever it is relevant to the defense in a bastardy proceeding, the trial court, on motion of the defendant, shall order that the complainant, her child, and the defendant submit to one or more blood-grouping tests to determine whether, by the use of such tests, the defendant can be determined not to be the father of the child * * *.'
The language of the statute is mandatory, and the right to obtain the result of such a test is an important right in making a defense against the charge. The cost of such a test cannot be allowed to deprive the defendant appellant of this right, especially since the charge against him is one that is regarded as 'quasi-criminal' in nature. People v. Doherty (1941), 261 App.Div. 86, 24 N.Y.S.2d 821. See also Commonwealth v. Possehl (1969), 355 Mass. 575, 246 N.E.2d 667.
In Griffin v. Illinois (1956), 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed., 891, the United States Supreme Court held that the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are violated where a state statute providing for writs of error in all criminal cases as a matter of right is so administered as to deny full appellate review in a non-capital case to an indigent defendant solely because of his inability to pay for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v. Holland
...support order is punishable by imprisonment under Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 46b-171, 46b-215, and 53-304 (1981). Cf. Walter v. Stokes, 45 Ohio App.2d 275, 278, 344 N.E.2d 159, 161 (1975); People v. Doherty, 261 App.Div. 86, 87, 24 N.Y.S.2d 821, 823 (1941)." Id. 10, 101 S.Ct. 2207. The plaintiff rea......
-
Little v. Streater
...support order is punishable by imprisonment under Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 46b-171, 46b-215, and 53-304 (1981). Cf. Walker v. Stokes, 45 Ohio App.2d 275, 278, 344 N.E.2d 159, 161 (1975); People v. Doherty, 261 App.Div. 86, 87, 24 N.Y.S.2d 821, 823 Moreover, the defendant in a Connecticut paternity......
-
Faulkner v. Mayfield
...after the crime and the fine are forgotten. A classification based on wealth is constitutionally suspect. Walker v. Stokes (1975), 45 Ohio App.2d 275, 74 O.O.2d 402, 344 N.E.2d 159. See, also,In re Jackson (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 51, 55 O.O.2d 45, 268 N.E.2d 812, which cites and follows Willi......
-
State ex rel. Graves v. Daugherty
...for an indigent be made at county expense. See also People v. Doherty, 261 App.Div. 86, 24 N.Y.S.2d 821 (1941) and Walker v. Stokes, 45 Ohio App.2d 275, 344 N.E.2d 159 (1975). These courts held that when a state grants the right to blood tests to a paternity defendant, that right cannot be ......