## Facts

- A young female alleged that Chris Scott Felton, a juvenile, grabbed her breast.
- Felton initially admitted the allegation but later claimed any touching was accidental.
- The State filed a juvenile complaint charging Felton as a delinquent child by reason of sexual imposition, which would have been a third-degree misdemeanor if committed by an adult.
- Felton denied the charge, and the case proceeded to a bench trial in juvenile court.
- Three witnesses testified that they saw Felton grab the victim’s breast.
- The victim did not appear to testify.
- The juvenile court found that, without the victim’s testimony, the State failed to prove sexual imposition beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore did not adjudicate Felton delinquent on that charge.
- After hearing the evidence, the juvenile court amended the complaint to add an allegation that Felton was an unruly child based on the same conduct and adjudicated Felton an unruly child.
- Felton appealed, arguing the amendment was improper and that he lacked notice of the unruliness allegation.

## Issues

1. Whether the juvenile court could amend a delinquency complaint alleging sexual imposition to add an unruly-child allegation based on the same conduct after the State failed to prove the delinquency charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether amending the complaint to add unruliness and adjudicating Felton unruly violated due process by depriving him of fair notice and an opportunity to defend.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s judgment adjudicating Felton an unruly child.
- The court explained that “unruliness” is not a lesser included offense of sexual imposition in the criminal-law sense, but the juvenile court could treat the matter as an amendment to the complaint rather than as a true lesser-included-offense finding.
- The court held the amendment did not violate due process because the factual basis remained the same (the alleged grabbing of the victim’s breast), and Felton had notice of and an opportunity to contest that conduct at trial.
- The court concluded the evidence presented was sufficient to support the unruly-child adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- Delinquency and unruliness are distinct statutory classifications in juvenile court; delinquency is tied to conduct that would be a criminal offense if committed by an adult, while unruliness is a separate juvenile status category.
- The criminal “lesser included offense” doctrine does not control whether a juvenile court may amend a complaint to allege a different juvenile status classification.
- Under the juvenile rules governing pleadings, a juvenile court may permit amendment of a complaint when the amendment does not prejudice the child’s substantial rights.
- Due process in juvenile court requires fair notice of the alleged conduct and a meaningful opportunity to defend; an amendment based on the same underlying conduct generally satisfies those requirements.
- Failure to prove a delinquency offense beyond a reasonable doubt does not automatically bar an unruliness adjudication based on the same incident when the proceedings gave the child a fair chance to contest the conduct at issue.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed because the juvenile court’s post-trial amendment added an unruliness allegation grounded in the same conduct originally charged, and Felton had notice and a full opportunity to defend against that conduct at the hearing; although unruliness is not a lesser included offense of sexual imposition, the amendment was permitted and did not deny due process.


In re Felton, 124 Ohio App. 3d 500, 706 N.E. 2d 809 (1997)