Steve Kent

YOUNGSTOWN — Less than a handful of jurors had been selected by Monday afternoon for the sexual battery trial of Austintown Trustee Steve Kent.

Mahoning County Common Pleas Judge John Durkin addressed two major pretrial motions Monday morning before jury selection began.

He first made a determination on a motion filed by defense attorney John Juhasz last week requesting a change of venue and alleging that pretrial publicity had tainted the jury pool in Mahoning County.

Durkin said he intends to at least attempt to seat a jury, but allowed for individual sequestered questioning of jurors, which he believes will help to minimize any bias against Kent.

Durkin also heard arguments from both sides on Juhasz’s contention that the first three counts of the indictment against Kent should be dismissed.

Prosecutors allege Kent had an inappropriate relationship with a student while he was the resource officer for Poland Seminary High School, and that he later attempted to destroy evidence.

Juhasz asserted that the language in the indictment against Kent for three counts of sexual battery did not include an essential element of the statute, and therefore a Mahoning County grand jury failed to give the court jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Ohio Revised Code section under which Kent was indicted states no person shall engage “in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender,” when “the offender is a teacher, administrator, coach, or other person in authority employed by or serving in a school for which the state board of education prescribes minimum standards …, the other person is enrolled in or attends that school, and the offender is not enrolled in and does not attend that school.”

Juhasz said the indictment failed to include the element that Kent is not enrolled in and does not attend the school.

The prosecution countered that the Ohio Revised Code allows amendment to the indictment provided that there is no change to the name or identity of the crime charged. The question in the matter was whether amending the indictment would in any way unfairly hinder Kent’s ability to defend himself against the charges.

Durkin determined that the state’s motion to amend the indictment to include the enrollment and attendance element of the statute did not meaningfully change the charges or infringe upon Kent’s right and ability to mount an adequate defense. He said the court does have jurisdiction, allowed the amendment, and ordered that the case proceed.