## Facts

- M.D., a 12-year-old girl, engaged in sexualized conduct with two 5-year-old children; family members described the incident as “playing doctor.”
- The state filed a juvenile delinquency petition charging M.D. with complicity to commit rape, an offense that would be a first-degree felony if committed by an adult.
- M.D. moved to dismiss, arguing the charging decision conflicted with juvenile-court intake policy and that the alleged policy violation implicated constitutional rights.
- A family member of one 5-year-old separately petitioned the juvenile court to dismiss on similar grounds.
- The juvenile court denied both requests to dismiss, held an adjudicatory hearing, and adjudicated M.D. delinquent.
- The court of appeals affirmed, and M.D. appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged failure to follow juvenile-court intake policy requires dismissal of a delinquency petition charging complicity to commit rape.
2. Whether an asserted intake-policy violation, without more, establishes a due process or equal protection violation barring prosecution.
3. Whether conduct characterized by the parties as “playing doctor” categorically prevents application of rape/complicity statutes in juvenile delinquency proceedings.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the refusal to dismiss the delinquency petition and upheld the delinquency adjudication.
- The court rejected the argument that a purported violation of juvenile-court intake policy, standing alone, creates a constitutional bar to prosecution or mandates dismissal.
- The court treated the “playing doctor” characterization as not legally dispositive; dismissal was not required on that label alone.
- The court left the charging decision largely within prosecutorial and juvenile-court discretion absent a showing of constitutionally impermissible enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- Juvenile-court intake policies are administrative guidelines for case screening and charging decisions; they do not, by themselves, create enforceable constitutional rights to nonprosecution or dismissal.
- A due process or equal protection claim based on charging decisions generally requires more than noncompliance with internal policy, such as proof of discriminatory intent, selective enforcement, or arbitrary treatment lacking a legitimate state interest.
- Descriptions such as “playing doctor” do not categorically exempt child-on-child sexual conduct from delinquency charges; courts focus on whether the evidence satisfies the statutory elements as applied in juvenile proceedings.
- Prosecutors and juvenile courts have broad discretion in initiating and pursuing delinquency petitions, subject to constitutional limits and fact-specific adjudication.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court held that alleged noncompliance with juvenile intake policy and the parties’ characterization of the conduct as “playing doctor” did not require dismissal of a delinquency petition alleging complicity to commit rape, and it affirmed the adjudication absent a separate showing of unconstitutional discrimination or arbitrariness.


In re M.D., 527 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio 1988)