## Facts

- D.B., age 12, was charged in juvenile court with multiple counts based on alleged sexual conduct with M.G., age 11; both children were under 13.
- The complaint alleged conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute rape under Ohio law, including a statutory-rape theory based solely on the victim’s age.
- Witnesses described repeated sexual conduct between the boys; testimony indicated D.B. often initiated the encounters and sometimes used inducements, and there were conflicting accounts about consent.
- The juvenile court found the sexual acts occurred but dismissed counts requiring proof of force for lack of sufficient evidence.
- The juvenile court adjudicated D.B. delinquent only under the strict-liability provision defining rape as sexual conduct with a person under 13, without requiring proof of the actor’s mental state regarding age.
- The court of appeals affirmed and rejected D.B.’s due process and equal protection challenges.

## Issues

1. Whether applying Ohio’s strict-liability rape statute (sexual conduct with a person under 13) to a child under 13 who engages in nonforcible sexual conduct with another child under 13 violates substantive due process by permitting arbitrary enforcement and failing to provide fair notice.
2. Whether the same application violates equal protection by treating similarly situated under-13 participants differently without a rational, statute-based basis to identify one as offender and the other as victim.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.
- The court held the strict-liability rape statute unconstitutional as applied to a child under 13 who engages in sexual conduct with another child under 13 when force is not alleged or proved.
- The court vacated D.B.’s delinquency adjudication and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- An as-applied constitutional challenge may succeed where a statute’s application produces arbitrary classifications or enforcement in a specific factual setting, even if the statute remains valid in other contexts.
- Substantive due process is violated when a criminal statute, as applied, provides no principled way to determine culpability among similarly situated actors, enabling arbitrary selection of who will be labeled the offender.
- Equal protection is violated when the state treats similarly situated individuals differently without a rational basis tied to the statute’s protective purpose; in peer, nonforcible sexual conduct between two under-13 children, purely age-based strict liability supplies no rational criterion to assign offender status.
- The holding is limited: the strict-liability rape statute remains enforceable against adults or older juveniles engaging in sexual conduct with children under 13, and in situations where coercion, force, or meaningful differentiating factors establish culpability.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the strict-liability rape statute as applied to nonforcible sexual conduct between two children both under 13 because it allowed arbitrary designation of one child as a rapist and the other as a victim, violating due process and equal protection, and it vacated the delinquency adjudication.


In re D.B., 129 Ohio St. 3d 104 (Ohio 2011)