YOUNGSTOWN — The Seventh District Court of Appeals has reversed the decision of Judge Theresa Dellick of Mahoning County Juvenile Court to keep a rape case in juvenile court instead of forwarding it to Mahoning County Common Pleas Court for possible indictment.

The appeals court decision, released March 21, ordered Dellick to transfer the case to the adult court. The suspect, identified in records as S.G, was released from juvenile detention last August close to his 21st birthday and remains free.

In response, Dellick filed a judgment entry Friday transferring the case, including two counts of rape, to adult court. “By the order of the Seventh District Court of Appeals, this within matter is hereby transferred to the general division of Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas.”

When asked about the appeals court ruling last week, Dellick declined to comment on the case, citing judicial codes of conduct that ban judges from speaking about pending cases. Wes Skeels, juvenile court administrator, confirmed last week that suspect remains free.

Under Ohio law, juvenile courts have “exclusive original jurisdiction” over any person under 18 who is alleged to have committed a crime. Juvenile courts can retain jurisdiction until age 21, the ruling says.

Dellick had ruled June 8 that the suspect was “amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system,” according to the ruling.

THE ARGUMENT

But the Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office appealed the decision June 18. The prosecutor’s appeal argued that because the suspect would be turning 21 years old within two months of Dellick’s ruling, that left only two months for the juvenile court and staff at the Martin P. Joyce Juvenile Justice Center to rehabilitate him before he would be released.

The appeals court ruling, written by judges David D’Apolito, Gene Donofrio and Carol Ann Robb, found that “two months provides insufficient time to rehabilitate a repeat rapist.”

The ruling stated that “the (judge) observed that the psychological report did not disclose any ‘deviant behavior.’ The juvenile court’s reliance on the foregoing observation completely ignores the alleged crimes, despite the juvenile court’s finding that probable cause (of the suspect committing the crimes) exists based on” the alleged victim’s testimony at a hearing.

The suspect is accused of two counts of rape involving a child younger than 13. The rapes are alleged to have occurred in late 2017 and early 2018, when the suspect was 17, the ruling states.

The alleged victim was 11 and under the influence of marijuana the first time the crimes are alleged to have occurred, the ruling states. The suspect is alleged to have provided the marijuana.

The alleged victim more than a year later told a school counselor in September 2019, and the charges were filed in August 2020, just before the suspect’s 20th birthday. The Youngstown Police Department’s Family Investigative Service Unit investigated the case.

ADULT COURT

The Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office filed a motion in October 2020, asking Dellick to transfer the case to adult court. A hearing was held Oct. 26, 2020, where the alleged victim testified about the suspect forcing him or her to engage in sexual conduct.

The alleged victim said the suspect blew marijuana smoke into his or her face and said to breathe it in. The alleged victim said he or she was “noticeably impaired … had difficulty ‘sitting up straight’ and struggled to ‘hold (his or her) body weight up,'” the ruling states.

The alleged victim refused the suspect’s request for sex, but he forced him or her, the ruling states.

At a second hearing to determine whether the suspect was amenable to rehabilitation, the prosecutor’s office presented one witness, the victim’s mother, who testified that the child “suffered psychological harm as a result of the charged acts.” The harm included personality changes that caused his or her mother to arrange sessions with a school counselor. The child’s grades dropped, the woman said.

Regarding the suspect, a psychological report indicated he had no mental health difficulties or intellectual disability but left high school in the 11th grade to support his own child, the ruling states.

The psychologist stated in a report that “there was insufficient time for rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system” because of the suspect’s age, the ruling states. “It can be gleaned from the report that the psychologist believes that four years provides a sufficient amount of time to rehabilitate a rapist,” the ruling notes.

REHABILITATION

At a hearing, the suspect’s attorney told Dellick the suspect had only one incident at age 15 that resulted in juvenile charges being filed. It was the robbery of an all-terrain vehicle for which he was sentenced to one month of community service, but he had never been detained in the juvenile justice system.

The suspect did not have a substance abuse problem, his attorney stated. His mother was addicted to drugs and is in prison, and his father had been in prison since the suspect was very young, the ruling states.

His attorney told the judge the suspect worked at various jobs but left one of them because of the demands of the criminal case. The suspect is “goal directed, cooperative, had good behavioral control,” the attorney stated, quoting from remarks from the psychologist.

During a hearing, Dellick asked the assistant prosecutor working on the suspect’s case whether the adult prison system has rehabilitation program available to sex offenders. The assistant prosecutor said “such a program exists, but that it is not as extensive as the program available in juvenile court.”

The suspect’s attorney added that there are “no classes, no mental health treatment or rehabilitation for sex offenders in the adult system, only punishment,” the ruling states.

Dellick ruled June 8 that the timing of the filing of charges against the suspect just before he turned 20 “occurred to the detriment of” the suspect and the alleged victim. Her ruling stated that “due to the delay in filing, (the suspect) is at a disadvantage due to no action of his own.”

Dellick ruled that despite the young age of the alleged victim and the “physical and psychological maturity” of the suspect, “the remaining factors demonstrated (the suspect’s) amenability to rehabilitation in the juvenile court system.”

Among the remaining factors were that the suspect did not have a firearm during the commission of the alleged crimes, that his psychological report “did not indicate any deviant behavior nor irrational conduct,” and no new charges or complaints against the suspect had been filed since the rape case arose.