## Facts

- Donald Collins was indicted in Lucas County on two counts of criminal nonsupport of his minor children under R.C. 2919.21.
- Count one alleged that, from September 13, 1990 through June 30, 1996, Collins “recklessly failed to provide adequate support” under former R.C. 2919.21(A)(2).
- Count two alleged that Collins failed to pay court-ordered child support under R.C. 2919.21(B), which did not expressly state a culpable mental state.
- A jury convicted Collins on both counts.
- In closing argument, the prosecutor emphasized that the defense had presented no evidence of payments or inability to pay and stated that the state did not have to prove ability to pay because the defendant had to prove inability.

## Issues

1. Whether R.C. 2919.21(B) requires proof of a culpable mental state (e.g., recklessness) or instead creates a strict-liability offense for failure to pay court-ordered child support.
2. Whether the prosecutor’s closing argument improperly shifted the burden of proof or penalized Collins’s right not to testify, requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that R.C. 2919.21(B) defines a strict-liability offense; the state need not prove recklessness or any other mens rea for a conviction under division (B).
- The court rejected the court of appeals’ conclusion that recklessness was an element of division (B) and reversed that portion of the appellate judgment.
- The court held the prosecutor’s remarks were permissible comments on the absence of evidence supporting a defense theory and did not warrant reversal.
- The court reinstated Collins’s conviction under R.C. 2919.21(B).

## Legal Principles

- When statutory text and structure indicate a legislative purpose to impose strict criminal liability, no culpable mental state is required.
- A legislature’s inclusion of an express mens rea in one statutory subdivision and omission of any mens rea term in another supports treating the latter as strict liability.
- The prosecution may comment on the defense’s failure to produce evidence supporting its theory; such comment does not, by itself, shift the burden of proof or violate the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination.
- Improper comment targets a defendant’s decision not to testify; permissible argument attacks the evidentiary support for an exculpatory claim.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that failure to pay court-ordered child support under R.C. 2919.21(B) is a strict-liability offense and that prosecutorial argument highlighting the absence of defense evidence of payment or inability to pay did not require reversal, leading to reinstatement of the conviction under division (B).


State v. Collins, 89 Ohio St. 3d 524 (Ohio 2000)