Lisa Forbes

“We as a society generally agree to be governed by the rule of law. It is our duty within the judicial system to deliver the expectations of accountability and transparency to protect individual rights and liberties,” Judge Forbes said. 

See: Sukosd, Csaba. "On the Bench: Judge Examines Law’s Intricacies from Capitol Hill to Supreme Court." Court News Ohio, 2 Oct. 2023.

Judge Forbes "is committed to the rule of law and doesn't write personal opinions into her rulings. 'I believe firmly that the supreme court is the last line of defense for our rights and liberties and that it should as a firewall to protect our democracy,' Forbes said. 'And I am committed to accomplishing that goal.'

See: Bischoff, Laura A. "Ohio Supreme Court Race 2024: Who Is Judge Lisa Forbes?" Columbus Dispatch, 8 Sept. 2024

Ohio Democrats 2024 Supreme Court Slate

Judge Forbes said “When people speak, it is the legislature’s job to do their will," and "it is [the] justices’ job to interpret the laws the legislature writes, regardless of how they personally feel about the statutes."

See: Szilagy, Sarah. "Two Democrats Face Off for Ohio Supreme Court Candidate Nomination." FOX19 NOW, 15 Mar. 2024.

“The Supreme Court needs to be an effective firewall to protect our democracy, our constitutional rights and the rule of law,”  “I will never bend to political pressure, and I will always stand up for your rights[,]" said Judge Forbes. 

See: "Lisa Forbes Wins Democratic Nomination for Ohio Supreme Court’s Only Open Seat." 13abc, Associated Press, 19 Mar. 2024, 

State v. Taylor, 2024-Ohio-1752. Justice Stewart wrote for the court with respect to Parts I and II(B) and announced the judgment of the court with respect to Parts II(A) and III. Forbes and Donnelly joined. 

Holding(s): The Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the appellate court erred in both determinations. 

Analysis: The Court found that the adult court had jurisdiction over the felony-murder charge against Taylor, relying on the prior versions of R.C. 2151.23(H) and precedent established in Smith and Burns. The Court found the cases support the conclusion that if a juvenile court finds probable cause for certain acts, the adult court can proceed with related charges, even if those specific charges were not named in the juvenile court. In Smith, the court established that an adult court lacks jurisdiction if the juvenile court found no probable cause for a charge. Burns elaborated that charges can arise in adult court as long as they are rooted in the acts from the juvenile complaint. Here the juvenile court found probable cause for complicity to commit murder, and the felony-murder charge was connected to the same facts. Thus, the Court found jurisdiction was valid under the law.

Additionally, the Court concluded that Taylor’s statements to police were admissible, overturning the court of appeals' decision The Court found that his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment had not yet attached at the time of interrogation, and any waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights following Miranda warnings was valid. The appeals court had ruled that these statements violated Taylor's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which the Supreme Court clarified does not attach until a criminal prosecution has commenced. Citing Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Texas, the court noted that the initiation of a prosecution occurs with formal charges or arraignment, not at the time of interrogation. Since the juvenile complaint against Taylor was filed several hours after his interrogation, the court found that his Sixth Amendment right had not yet attached. Additionally, the Court found under Montejo v. Louisiana, a defendant can waive the Sixth Amendment right to counsel if the waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Taylor had been informed of his Miranda rights, which include the right to counsel, and he agreed to waive these rights, thus the Court found he waived his Sixth Amendment claims.

The court also addressed the due-process right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is recognized in juvenile proceedings. This right is codified in R.C. 2151.352, granting juveniles the right to counsel at all stages of the proceedings. The Court found, however since Taylor was an adult during the interrogation, the due-process right to counsel did not attach until the juvenile complaint was filed, which occurred after his police statements.

Kennedy Concurring in part and concurring in judgement only: Justice Kennedy's agreed with the majority's conclusion that the Tenth District Court of Appeals erred in concluding Taylor's statements to police should have been suppressed. He agreed with the majority's reasoning regarding the Sixth Amendment, affirming that the right to counsel had not yet attached during the interrogation. However, Kennedy disagreed with the majority regarding the jurisdiction of the General Division of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas over Taylor's felony murder charge. 

He argued that while the majority found that the court had jurisdiction based on previous cases (Smith and Burns), that these decisions imposed new limitations not present in the plain language of former R.C. 2151.23(H). He argued that the statute allowed the adult court to have jurisdiction over any offenses related to the juvenile's actions, regardless of whether probable cause had been found in juvenile court. Kennedy emphasized that the statutory language did not restrict the adult court's jurisdiction to only charges where probable cause had been established, nor did it limit the court to charges explicitly mentioned in the juvenile complaint. He asserted that the majority’s reliance on Smith and Burns was unwarranted and called for their overruling, arguing that these decisions contradicted the legislative intent of the bindover statutes.

Background: In 2016, Straughter was fatally shot. The policed "discovered the gun rail of a Smith & Wesson M&P semiautomatic pistol, live rounds, shell casings, and a key fob that unlocked a nearby Chevrolet Malibu[]" lassociated with Taylor. Taylor, 17 at the time, invoked his right to counsel after he was taken into custody and read his Miranda rights."Despite his invocation, the detective continued speaking with and questioning Taylor, and collected a DNA sample and conducted a gunshot residue test." (3) The evidence later linked him to the crime scene. Law enforcement know Taylor was represented by an attorney. "Without his attorney present, Taylor waived his Miranda rights, including the right to counsel, answered questions, gave conflicting stories, and eventually claimed that he had witnessed another person, Damion Wade, shoot Straughter." (3) Taylor was charged with murder and the case was transferred to adult court after the juvenile court found probable cause. The adult court suppressed Taylor's initial DNA sample and statements but admitted statements given on December 12, 2016. Taylor was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to 18 years to life in prison.The Tenth District Court of Appeals vacated Taylor’s conviction, ruling that the adult court lacked jurisdiction over the felony murder charge and that Taylor’s December 12 statements should have been suppressed due to a Sixth Amendment violation. The appellate court found that Taylor’s right to counsel had attached by the time of his December interrogation and that he had not knowingly waived this right. In this discretionary appeal, the court reviewed two issues: whether the appellate court was correct in determining that the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (adult court) lacked jurisdiction over Taylor for felony murder, and whether Taylor’s statements to police should have been suppressed.