Background
Aden S. King pleaded no contest to misdemeanor unlawful sexual conduct with a minor under R.C. 2907.04(A). King was 19, and the minor—who was several months short of age 16—was about three years younger. Because King was less than four years older, the charge was a first-degree misdemeanor.
After finding King guilty, the municipal court held a hearing on sex-offender registration and heard testimony from King and the minor. The court concluded that anyone under 16 was legally incapable of consenting to sexual conduct and classified King as a tier-I sex offender without deciding whether the minor had consented as a matter of fact. King appealed the registration order.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District held that a minor’s age alone does not eliminate the factual consent inquiry required by R.C. 2950.01(A)(2). That provision treats unlawful sexual conduct with a minor as a sexually oriented offense in the circumstances applicable here only if the minor “did not consent.” Because every minor covered by R.C. 2907.04(A) is between 13 and 15 years old, treating age as conclusively precluding consent would render the statutory consent language meaningless.
The court found additional support in R.C. 2950.01(B)(2)(b), which excludes certain offenders from the definition of “sex offender” when the conduct was consensual, the victim was at least 13, and the offender was not more than four years older. The court therefore reversed King’s tier-I classification and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the minor actually consented. That factual finding will dictate whether King must register as a sex offender.
Key Takeaways
- For unlawful sexual conduct involving an offender less than four years older than a 13-, 14-, or 15-year-old, the minor’s consent is a factual question under Ohio’s registration statutes.
- A court may not impose sex-offender registration solely on the theory that everyone under age 16 is legally incapable of consenting.
- If the trial court finds no consent, tier-I classification is required; if it finds consensual conduct within the statutory age-gap conditions, King is exempt from registration.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes criminal liability for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor from the separate statutory inquiry governing sex-offender registration. Although a person under 16 falls within the criminal statute’s protected age range, that fact does not automatically establish nonconsent for registration purposes.
Ohio trial courts handling comparable age-gap cases must make an evidence-based consent finding before deciding whether the offender is subject to R.C. Chapter 2950.