## Facts

- Mary Hardie engaged in repeated sexual conduct with two 14-year-old boys, including oral sex and intercourse, over a period of time.
- The conduct involved two victims (described as twin brothers and relatives or family acquaintances).
- Hardie provided alcohol to the boys in connection with the sexual activity.
- The abuse ended only after Hardie was discovered in the act by another person.
- Hardie admitted she knew her conduct was wrong but minimized responsibility by attributing it to external factors and low self-esteem.
- Hardie had no prior criminal record, and the offenses did not involve physical force or threats.
- Hardie was convicted of two counts of corruption of a minor.
- At a separate classification hearing under former Ohio R.C. Chapter 2950, the State presented expert testimony from psychologist Dr. James Harding, who opined that Hardie was likely to commit future sexually oriented offenses.
- The trial court considered the presentence investigation, the expert testimony, Hardie’s background, and the offense circumstances, and classified Hardie as a sexual predator.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Hardie was “likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually oriented offenses” and therefore a sexual predator under former R.C. 2950.01(E).
2. Whether the trial court properly considered and applied the statutory recidivism factors in reaching its classification decision.

## Decision

- The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment classifying Hardie as a sexual predator.
- The court held the record contained clear and convincing evidence supporting the finding of likely future sexually oriented offenses.
- The court upheld the trial court’s reliance on expert testimony and the offense circumstances, including multiple minor victims, repeated acts, and the use of alcohol.

## Legal Principles

- A sexual-predator classification under former R.C. 2950.01(E) requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that the offender is likely to commit future sexually oriented offenses.
- In making the classification, the trial court must consider the statutory factors, but it need not find that every factor favors classification; the determination rests on the totality of the evidence.
- Appellate review does not reweigh the evidence; it asks whether competent evidence, if believed, could produce a firm belief or conviction that the statutory standard is met.
- Expert testimony on recidivism risk may be given substantial weight when grounded in an evaluation and the statutory-factor framework.
- Mitigating considerations such as lack of prior record or absence of force do not preclude a sexual-predator finding when the offense pattern and other evidence support likely recidivism.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Hardie’s sexual-predator classification, concluding that the repeated sexual abuse of two 14-year-old victims, the use of alcohol, and expert recidivism testimony collectively met the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for likely future sexually oriented offenses.


State v. Hardie, 141 Ohio App. 3d 1, 749 N.E.2d 792 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)