Lowe v. Stark County Sheriff
2011 WL 6091318, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24245, 663 F.3d 258 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The constitutional right to privacy in consensual adult sexual conduct established in Lawrence v. Texas does not extend to incestuous relationships, and a state does not unreasonably apply federal law by upholding an incest statute under rational basis review based on its legitimate interest in protecting the family unit.
Facts:
- Paul Lowe was a stepparent to a 22-year-old stepdaughter.
- Lowe and his adult stepdaughter engaged in consensual sexual intercourse.
- An Ohio statute, Ohio Rev.Code § 2907.03(A)(5), criminalizes sexual conduct between a stepparent and a stepchild, irrespective of the stepchild's age or consent.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Lowe was charged with sexual battery in an Ohio trial court.
- Lowe's motion to dismiss the charge on constitutional grounds was overruled by the trial court.
- Lowe pled no contest, was convicted, and sentenced.
- Lowe, as appellant, appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction.
- Lowe, as appellant, appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which also affirmed the conviction.
- Lowe filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- The district court denied Lowe's habeas petition.
- Lowe, as petitioner-appellant, appealed the denial of his habeas petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Ohio Supreme Court unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, as determined in Lawrence v. Texas, by upholding a state statute criminalizing consensual sexual intercourse between a stepparent and his adult stepdaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffin, Circuit Judge.
No. The Ohio Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. The Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas is not 'clearly established' federal law with respect to incest statutes because federal circuit courts are split on the scope of the right and the standard of review it established. Therefore, the Ohio court's decision to apply rational basis review was not objectively unreasonable under the deferential AEDPA standard. Furthermore, the Lawrence court explicitly distinguished its holding from cases involving relationships where consent might not be easily refused, such as the inherent power dynamic in a stepparent-stepchild relationship. The state of Ohio has a legitimate interest in protecting the family from the 'destructive influence' of incest, an interest far greater than Texas's interest in banning homosexual sodomy, which provides a rational basis for the statute.
Analysis:
This decision significantly cabins the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, clarifying that the liberty interest in private, consensual sexual conduct is not absolute and does not extend to incest. It reinforces the principle that states retain a strong, legitimate interest in regulating relationships to protect the integrity of the family unit, an interest sufficient to survive rational basis scrutiny. The court's reliance on the circuit split over Lawrence's meaning also demonstrates the high bar for habeas relief under AEDPA, where a lack of clarity in Supreme Court precedent shields state court decisions from being deemed 'unreasonable.'
