## Facts

- Tony Cook was accused of committing gross sexual imposition against two girls under thirteen in June 1996.
- He was indicted in November 1996 on two counts under Ohio law.
- Cook pleaded guilty to one count on January 9, 1997; the other count was dismissed.
- Ohio’s amended sex-offender law (R.C. Chapter 2950), including sexual-predator classification procedures in R.C. 2950.09(B)(1), became effective January 1, 1997.
- At sentencing on February 14, 1997, the trial court held a hearing and classified Cook as a “sexual predator,” triggering registration and notification duties.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed the sexual-predator classification as unconstitutionally retroactive under the Ohio Constitution, while indicating Cook could still be subject to prior registration requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether applying R.C. 2950.09(B)(1) to conduct occurring before the statute’s effective date violates the Ohio Constitution’s prohibition on retroactive laws (Ohio Const. art. II, § 28).
2. Whether applying R.C. Chapter 2950’s classification, registration, and notification scheme to pre-enactment conduct violates the federal Ex Post Facto Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 10) by increasing punishment after the fact.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court’s sexual-predator classification.
- The court held that applying R.C. 2950.09(B)(1) to pre-effective-date conduct does not violate Ohio’s retroactivity clause.
- The court held that applying R.C. 2950.09(B)(1) and the related statutory scheme to pre-enactment conduct does not violate the federal Ex Post Facto Clause.
- The court characterized the classification, registration, and notification requirements as civil and regulatory measures aimed at public safety rather than additional criminal punishment.

## Legal Principles

- A statute expressly applied to past conduct does not violate Ohio’s retroactivity clause if it is remedial or procedural rather than substantive.
- Sex-offender classification, registration, and community-notification requirements may be treated as civil, remedial regulation focused on public protection rather than as criminal sanctions.
- The Ex Post Facto Clause applies only to laws that are punitive in purpose or effect; a nonpunitive regulatory scheme does not become ex post facto merely because it imposes burdens or stigma.
- A sexual-predator determination proceeding may be treated as a civil risk-assessment mechanism tied to public-safety regulation, not a second prosecution or additional criminal sentence.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of applying Ohio’s amended sex-offender classification and registration law to offenses committed before its effective date, ruling the scheme is civil and remedial and therefore neither an unconstitutional retroactive law under the Ohio Constitution nor an ex post facto punishment under the federal Constitution.


State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St. 3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570 (Ohio 1998)