[Cite as In re M.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 309, 2012-Ohio-4538.]

I N RE M.W. [Cite as In re M.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 309, 2012-Ohio-4538.] Juvenile procedure—R.C. 2151.352—The term “proceedings” as used in R.C. 2151.352 means court proceedings, and in that context, a child is statutorily entitled to representation by legal counsel upon the filing of a complaint in juvenile court or upon initial appearance in the juvenile

court. (No. 2011-0215—Submitted December 6, 2011—Decided October 3, 2012.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 94737, 2010-Ohio-6362.

____________________ S YLLABUS OF THE C OURT The term “proceedings” as used in R.C. 2151.352 means court proceedings, and in that context, a child is statutorily entitled to representation by legal counsel upon the filing of a complain t in juvenile c ourt or upon initial appearance in the juvenile court.

__________________ O’D ONNELL , J. {¶ 1} The issue we confront in this a ppeal is whether a juvenile has a statutory right to counsel during a po lice interrogation conducted before a complaint is filed or an appearance is made in juvenile court. {¶ 2} R.C. 2151.352 provides that a child “is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of the proceed ings under this chapter or Chapter 2152.” Because the term “proceedings,” as used in this statute, means court proceedings, a juvenile does not have a statutory right to counsel at an interrogation conductedS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 prior to the filing of a complaint or prior to appearing in juvenile court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 3} On August 22, 2009, Cleveland Police Sergeant Thomas Shoulders stopped a vehicle driven by M.W. (who at that time identified himself as M.J.)
and determined he had no va lid Ohio driver’s license. When Shoulders asked why he lied about his name, M.W. stated he “thought [he] could get away with it” and he thought he had been stopped for “something to do with [A.C.]” Shoulders knew that A.C. had been arrested for ag gravated robbery the previous day and
therefore asked M.W. what he knew about th at robbery. M.W. told Shoulders that he heard A.C. robbed “someone at gun poi nt on Thursday night” and then added that he had served as the lookout for A.C.: “I kept anyone from walking up on him or watched for the police.” M.W. fu rther explained that after the robbery, they each ran, intending to split the money the following day, but the police arrested A.C. before they had that opportunity. {¶ 4} Based on those statements, Shoulde rs arrested M.W., transported
him to the Cleveland Second District Police Station, and in the presence of Detective David Borden, advised M.W. of his constitutional rights. M.W. signed a written waiver of his rights and a written statement. 1 Detective Borden then filed a complaint in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court alleging M.W. to be delinquent for having committed aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), a felony of the first degree, with firearm specifications pursuant to
R.C. 2941.141 and 2941.145. {¶ 5} The state moved to bind M.W. over to the general division of common pleas court in order to prosecute M. W. as an adult. The juvenile court

1. It is this statement that M.W. contests in this appeal; no objection is made to the statements he gave to Shoulders at the time he was stopped.January Term, 2012

3 denied that motion, finding M.W. amen able to care and rehabilitation in the juvenile system. {¶ 6} Subsequently, a juvenile court magistrate adjudicated M.W. delinquent of aggravated robbery with a three-year firearm specification, and the juvenile court adopted that decision: it placed M.W. in the custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services for a minimum of one year on the aggravatedrobbery charge and one year on the three-year firearm specification, to be served consecutively, for a period of commitment not to exceed 21 years of age. {¶ 7} M.W. appealed and raised several claims, urging that the trial court erred in admitting his written statement into evidence because Shoulders had violated R.C. 2151.352 in obtaining it. Th at statute provides a juvenile with a right to representation by legal counsel at all stages of the proceedings pursuant to R.C. Chapters 2151 and 2152. M.W. asserted that giving a written statement to Shoulders was a proceeding and triggere d his statutory right to counsel. He
further claimed that based on In re C.S ., 115 Ohio St.3d 267, 2007-Ohio-4919, 874 N.E.2d 1177, he could not waive his Fifth Amendment right to counsel during interrogation, recognized in Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), unless he had co nsulted with a parent, guardian, custodian, or attorney regarding the wa iver. Because he had not consulted anyone, M.W. argued that the waiver of his Miranda right to counsel was invalid
based on In re C.S

. {¶ 8} The state disputed the assertion that interrogation constituted a proceeding within the scope of R.C. Chapter 2151 at which the right to counsel pursuant to R.C. 2151.352 attached, arguing that the term “proceedings” in R.C. 2151.352 meant court proceedings. It cited the definitions for the terms “court proceeding” and “party” contained in J uv.R. 2 and the requirement of Juv.R. 4 that parties to a juvenile court proceeding are entitled to counsel. The state further explained that a juvenile-de linquency proceeding commences when aS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 complaint is filed or a juvenile appears before the juvenile court. In this case, the state argued that because M.W. gave his written statement before Detective Borden filed the complaint in juvenile court that commenced the delinquency proceeding against him, his statutory right to counsel had not attached at the time of interrogation. {¶ 9} The appellate court rejected M.W.’s claim that giving a written statement to Shoulders constituted a stage of the proceedings, explaining that “a juvenile proceeding does not commence until the filing of a complaint.” 8th Dist. No. 94737, 2010-Ohio-6362, ¶ 16. It concluded that because no complaint had been filed against M.W. at the time of the police interrogation, R.C. 2151.352 did not apply. Id

. 2 {¶ 10} M.W. appealed and now presents this proposition of law for our
consideration:

A child has the right to counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. Because Ohio's General Assembly has designated interrogation as a stage of the proceedings, a child must be represented by his parent, guar dian, custodian, or an attorney before the child can waive his right to counsel pursuant to
Miranda

.

{¶ 11} M.W. contends that an interrogation is an R.C. Chapter 2151 proceeding because it is included in R.C. 2151.311(D)(2) and that he had a statutory right to counsel at all stages of the proceedings pursuant to R.C.
2151.352 that arose before he waived his Miranda right to counsel. He further

2. M.W. never exercised his Miranda right to counsel, as noted by the court of appeals in its opinion. Thus, the only basis upon which M.W. claims a right to counsel in this appeal is a statutory right to counsel pursuant to R.C. 2151.352.January Term, 2012

5 asserts that the waiver of his Miranda right to counsel is invalid based on In re
C.S. because he had not consulted with an attorney or parent. {¶ 12} The state contends that an interrogation is not a “proceeding” as
that term is used in R.C. 2151.352 or with in the usual and ordinary definition of the term. It also contends that the legislative history of R.C. 2151.352 does not support a finding that an interrogation is a proceeding and that the term “proceeding” is used consistently thro ughout the Revised Code to mean a court proceeding. The state also asserts that th e juvenile rules of procedure similarly do not lend support to M.W.’s position, pointin g out that Juv.R. 2(G) defines “court proceeding” to mean any action taken by a court after the filing of a complaint or the time the child first appears before the c ourt and that Juv.R. 4(A) states that the right to counsel does not attach until the juvenile becomes “a party to a juvenile court proceeding.” Thus, the state contends that because interrogation is not an R.C. Chapter 2151 proceeding, the right of a juvenile to counsel pursuant to R.C. 2151.352 does not arise until the juvenile appear s before the court, and, in turn, In
re C.S. does not apply in this case. {¶ 13} Thus, the issue presented by this appeal is whether the statutory right to counsel delineated by the Gene ral Assembly in R.C. 2151.352 attaches to an interrogation of a juvenile prior to the filing of a complaint alleging delinquency or prior to an appearance by the juvenile in juvenile court. Resolution of that issue rests on the definition of the term “proceedings” as used
in R.C. 2151.352. Law and Analysis {¶ 14} R.C. 2151.352 provides: “A child, the child's parents or custodian, or any other person in loco parentis of the child is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of the proc eedings under this chapter or Chapter 2152
of the Revised Code.”S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 {¶ 15} R.C. 2151.311(C)(1) provides that a person taking a child into custody for a delinquent act that would be a felony if committed by an adult may
hold the child for processing purposes for a maximum of six hours in an adult
center. The statute further define s “processing purposes” to include

“ [i]nterrogating the child , contacting the child's parent or guardian, arranging for placement of the child, or arranging for transfer or transferring the child, while holding the child in a nonsecure area of the facility.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2151.311(D)(2). {¶ 16} In the case of In re C.S ., we construed R.C. 2151.352 in the context of a delinquency proceeding and held that “a juvenile may waive his constitutional right to counsel, subject to certain standards * * *, if he is counseled and advised by his parent, cu stodian, or guardian. If th e juvenile is not counseled by his parent, guardian, or custodian and has not consulted with an attorney, he may not waive his right to counsel.” 115 Ohio St.3d 267, 2007-Ohio-4919, 874 N.E.2d 1177, at ¶ 98. Here, however, we ar e concerned with determining whether an interrogation that occurs prior to the filing of a complaint in the juvenile court is considered a “proceeding” for the purposes of R.C. 2151.352, and it is the procedural and timing differences that distinguish this case from In re C.S

. {¶ 17} This appeal involves a matter of statutory construction. The primary goal in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308, 2004-Ohio-969, 804 N.E.2d 471, ¶ 11. When analyzing a statute, we first examine its plain language and apply the statute as written when th e meaning is clear and unambiguous.
State v. Lowe , 112 Ohio St.3d 507, 2007-Ohio-606, 861 N.E.2d 512, ¶ 9. This analysis also requires that we read wo rds and phrases in c ontext and construe them according to the rules of grammar and common usage. R.C. 1.42. {¶ 18} R.C. 2151.352 does not define the term “proceedings”; therefore, we look to the usual and ordinary defi nition of that term for guidance. BrecksvilleJanuary Term, 2012

7 v. Cook , 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 56, 661 N.E.2d 706 (1996). Black's Law Dictionary 1324 (9th Ed.2009) defines “proceeding” as (1) “[t]he regular and orderly progression of a lawsuit, including all acts and events between the time of commencement and the entry of judgment ” (emphasis added), (2) a way by which redress is sought from a tribunal or an agency , (3) “[a]n act or step that is part of a larger action,” and (4) “[t]he business conducted by a court or other official body; a hearing.” It is also noteworthy that in 1969, when the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2151.352, “proceeding” was defined in Black’s Law Dictionary in virtually the same way, but the entry included a comment that the term proceeding “is properly applicable, in a legal sense, onl y to judicial acts before some judicial
tribunal.” Id. at 1368 (4th Ed.1968). Also, Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1807 (1986) defines “proceedings” as “the course of procedure in a judicial action or in a suit in litigation: legal action * * * : a particular action at law or case in litigation.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the term “proceedings” denotes acts or events taken between the time of commencing an action at law and the entry of a final judgment by a judici al tribunal. “Proceedings” evokes a court of law, not the investigatory action taken by police prior to the filing of a complaint or a juvenile’s initia l appearance before a tribunal. {¶ 19} Prior decisions from this court also support interpretation of the term “proceedings” to mean court proceedings. In State v. Davis, 132 Ohio St.3d
25
, 2012-Ohio-1654, 968 N.E.2d 466, we construed R.C. 2921.04(B) and held
that a conviction for witness intimidation c ould not be sustained when the act of intimidation occurred prior to the formal initiation of criminal charges or grand jury proceedings, but during a pending police investigation, because a court was not yet involved. We reiterated: “Thr oughout the Revised Code, ‘ “criminal
action or proceeding ” * * * indicates the involvement of a court.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Id . at ¶ 16, quoting State v. Malone , 121 Ohio St.3d 244, 2009-Ohio-310, 903 N.E.2d 614, at ¶ 15; see also Malone at ¶ 18 (“As demonstrated in Ohio'sS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

8 statutory scheme and in this court’s case law, a ‘criminal action or proceeding’ implies a formal process involving a court”); State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson , 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 432, 639 N.E.2d 83 (1994) (noting that the term “proceeding,” used in R.C. 149.43(A)(1), is defined in Black’s to mean the steps in an action from commencement to final judgment). {¶ 20} In addition, the Juvenile Rules le nd support to the view that the term “proceedings” in R.C. 2151.352 means court proceedings. See, e.g. , Juv.R. 2(G) defines “court proceeding” to mean “all action taken by a court from the earlier of (1) the time a complaint is filed and (2) the time a person first appears before an officer of a juvenile court until the court relinquishes jurisdiction over such child”; Juv.R. 2(Y) defines a “party ” as “a child who is the subject of a juvenile court proceeding”; and Juv.R. 4( A) provides that “[e]very party shall have the right to be represented by c ounsel” and that right attaches “when a person becomes a party to a juvenile court proceeding.” {¶ 21} Finally, the context in which the term “proceedings” is used in R.C. 2151.352 reveals that the General Assembly contemplated that the term would mean court proceedings. The statute applies to a “child, the child’s parents or custodian, or any other person in loco paren tis of the child” and refers to each as a “party,” inferring that a legal action has commenced. The statute also directs the court to undertake a variety of actions, in cluding providing counsel to indigent parties, observing whether a party is aware of the right to counsel and the right to be appointed counsel if indi gent, and continuing a case to enable a party to obtain counsel or be appointed counsel; a court, however, may take action only after its jurisdiction has been invoked. See State ex rel. Pfeiffer v. Lorain Cty. Common
Pleas Court , 13 Ohio St.2d 133, 136-137, 235 N.E.2d 232 (1968); see also In re
Hunt , 46 Ohio St.2d 378, 348 N.E.2d 727 (1976), paragraph one of the syllabus (“A complaint under Juv.R. 10 and R.C. 2151.27 alleging that a child isJanuary Term, 2012

9 dependent must state the essential facts which bring the proceeding within the jurisdiction of the court”). {¶ 22} The fallacy of M.W.’s argument is highlighted by the fact that he invokes a right to counsel pursuant to R.C. 2151.352 before the delinquency matter is brought against him in juven ile court. His reliance on R.C. 2151.352, which requires a court to appoint counsel or ascertain whether a party is aware of his right to counsel, is weakened by the fa ct that the jurisdiction of the juvenile court had not yet been invoked, and t hus no court had authority to act. {¶ 23} In view of these reasons and the plain language of R.C. 2151.352, we conclude that an interrogation that occurs prior to the filing of a complaint alleging delinquency or prior to an ap pearance in juvenile court is not a proceeding that falls within the scope of R.C. Chapter 2151. This determination is consistent with our duty to construe statutes to avoid unjust and unreasonable results. R.C. 1.47(C). {¶ 24} This conclusion also conforms with our statement in State v.
Ostrowski , 30 Ohio St.2d 34, 282 N.E.2d 359 (1972): “Taken as a whole, the purpose of R.C. 2151.352 is to insure to the juvenile his right to counsel and/or his right to have parents present at any hearing.” Id . at 42 (construing an earlier version of R.C. 2151.352, which contained the term “stages of the proceedings”). {¶ 25} In this case, the complaint filed by Detective Borden commenced the delinquency proceeding against M.W. and invoked the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and afforded M.W. the ri ght to counsel pursuant to R.C. 2151.352. Because Shoulders’s interrogation of M.W. occurred prior to the filing of that complaint, M.W.’s statutory right to counsel had not attached. {¶ 26} We stress that the only claimed right to counsel in this appeal is a statutory one premised on R.C. 2151.352, and our narrow holding does not address any constitutional right to counsel or the issue of waiver. Although M.W. had a Fifth Amendment right to counsel pursuant to Miranda , he did not exerciseS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

10 that right. In re M.W ., 2010-Ohio-6362, at ¶ 16. His Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which guarantees the right to c ounsel at all “ ‘critical’ stages of the proceedings,” United States v. Wade , 388 U.S. 218, 224, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), had not yet attached because a complaint alleging delinquency had not yet been filed. United States v. Gouveia , 467 U.S. 180, 189, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984) (right to counsel “attaches at the
initiation” of adve rsarial judicial proceedings).
Conclusion {¶ 27} The term “proceedings” as used in R.C. 2151.352 means court proceedings, and in that context, a child is statutorily entitled to representation by legal counsel upon the filing of a compla int in juvenile c ourt or upon initial appearance in the juvenile court. Thus, th e right of a juvenile to counsel pursuant to R.C. 2151.352 attaches when the jurisdic tion of a juvenile court is properly invoked. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of th e appellate court. Judgment affirmed.
L UNDBERG S TRATTON , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., dissent.

__________________ L ANZINGER , J., concurring. {¶ 28} I concur in judgment because the st atute, the juvenile rules, and the cases cited in the majority opinion support the conclusion that the term “proceedings” in R.C. 2151.352 relates to j uvenile court proceedings that begin when a complaint alleging delinquency is filed. Although the dissent is impassioned in arguing that a juvenile’s ri ght to counsel should attach at an earlier time, such an extension is a policy matte r. Just as it amended R.C. 2921.04 to define “witness” to mean a person with knowledge of facts “whether or not criminal or delinquent child charges are actually filed,” th e General AssemblyJanuary Term, 2012

11 may define the term “proceedings” to include a statutory right to counsel for juveniles during “investigations of delinquency” if it so chooses.
C UPP , J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

__________________ O’C ONNOR , C.J., dissenting. {¶ 29} Because I believe that the majority’s holding offends the United States Supreme Court’s constitutional commands on a juvenile’s due process and Fifth Amendment rights, our own precedent, and the intent of the General Assembly in enacting R.C. 2151.352, I must dissent.
T HE C ONFESSION {¶ 30} In 2009, M.W., a 15-year-old boy, acted as a lookout while his friend, another juvenile male , robbed a victim at gunpoint. We believe this to be true because soon thereafter, M.W. ad mitted those facts to Cleveland Police. {¶ 31} M.W. confessed after signing a waiver of his rights to an attorney,
without the benefit of advice from counsel or his parents or guardian. (Evidently, it is “typical” for the Cleveland Police De partment to intervie w juveniles without their parents being present.) And afte r doing so, he was interrogated by police without an attorney being present. {¶ 32} There is no doubt that M.W.’s actions were dangerous and that he
is in need of intervention. But there is doubt whether his confession, which was used against him in the subsequent de linquency proceedings, was constitutionally
obtained. {¶ 33} The majority opinion divorces the relevant analyses from the question before us, asserting that there is no need to discuss a juvenile’s constitutional protections because M.W. waived any constitutional right against self-incrimination. Evidently, the majo rity ignores that the proposition weS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

12 accepted for review in this appeal clearly refers to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 3 {¶ 34} The majority then asserts that the statute at issue, R.C. 2151.352, is a plainly worded one and that the statut ory term “proceedings” cannot be subject to more than one interpretation. {¶ 35} The majority is mistaken on both counts.
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING The Statutory Term “Proceedings” Is Not Clear and Unambiguous {¶ 36} The term “proceedings” does not have one plain and ordinary meaning. {¶ 37} The term can certainly refer to an event in civil litigation or criminal prosecution that occurs after the filing of a complaint or an indictment with the court. But that understanding of the word is not the exclusive one, nor is it dispositive here. After all, the majority concedes that the word “proceedings” also refers to “ ‘[a]n act or step that is part of a larg er action.’ ” Majority opinion at ¶ 18, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1324 (9th Ed.2009). And certainly an interrogation of a juvenile is an act or step that is part of a larger action, i.e., the process of adjudicating the juvenile as a delinquent. {¶ 38} Perhaps more compelling, however, is that Black’s recognizes that the term “proceedings” includes “ ‘all ancillary or provisional steps, such as

arrest. ’ ” (Emphasis added.) Black’s at 1324, quoting Edwin E. Bryant, The Law of Pleading under the Codes of Civil Procedure 3-4 (2d Ed.1899). 4 Notably, that

3. The question before us is whether a juvenile has the right to counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him, and whether in the interrogation stage, the juvenile must be represented by his parent, guardian, custodian, or an attorney before waiving his right to counsel pursuant to Miranda

. 4. The majority attempts to support its view by pointing to the definitions that were in Black’s when the statute was enacted in 1969. But 70 years prior to the enactment of the statute, Dean Bryant had explained that an “arrest” is a “proceeding.” We must presume that the General Assembly was aware of that usage of the term “proceeding” in the common law. In re C.S. , 115January Term, 2012

13 definition is absent from the majority’s opinion, notwithstanding the fact that it appears in the same definition upon which the majority relies. {¶ 39} Thus, the varied definitions of “proceedings” contradict the majority’s insistence that there is only one plain and ordinary meaning of the word and its conclusion that the only meaning of “proceedings” is a court event that takes place after the filing of a comp laint or indictment. Thus, to understand what the General Assembly intended, we must look beyond the statute’s words. {¶ 40} The majority implicitly agrees that we must look beyond the words of the statute because its analysis does not end with a discussion of the plain and ordinary meaning of “proceeding.” Instead, it attempts to buttress its conclusion with context from our case law. I agree that context controls the analysis here, but I strongly disagree with the context upon which the majority relies.
T HE I MPROPER C ONTEXT U SED BY THE M AJORITY The Sixth Amendment Right to Couns el Is Inapplicable in Juvenile Cases {¶ 41} The majority holds, “ ‘Proceedings’ evokes a court of law, not the investigatory action taken by police prior to the filing of the complaint or a juvenile’s appearance before a tribunal.” Majority opinion at ¶ 18. The majority would be correct if it were addressing an adult criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a proceeding, which does not attach until a prosecution commences. See, e.g., McNeil v. Wisconsin , 501 U.S. 171, 175, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991). More specifically, in the adult criminal context, the United States Supreme Court has held that a defendant’s right to counsel in a proceeding does not co mmence until the government initiates “ ‘adversary judicial criminal proceedings—whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, in formation, or arraignment.’ ” Rothgery v. Gillespie Cty., Tex. , 554 U.S. 191, 198, 128 S.Ct. 2578, 171 L.Ed.2d 366 (2008),

Ohio St.3d 267, 2007-Ohio-4919, 874 N.E.2d 1177, ¶ 91 (when enacting statutes, we presume the General Assembly was mindful of the common law).S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

14 quoting Kirby v. Illinois , 406 U.S. 682, 689, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972) (plurality opinion). {¶ 42} But the Sixth Amendment is not applicable here. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Controls in Juvenile Cases {¶ 43} As we explained in In re C.S. , the juvenile’s right to counsel is not governed by the Sixth Amendment, but rather by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 115 Ohio St.3d 267, 2007-Ohio-4919, 874 N.E.2d 1177, ¶ 79, citing In re Gault , 387 U.S. 1, 41, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). Because it is founded in due process, the juvenile’s right to counsel in proceedings is a malleable right rather than a rigid one; it is driven by concerns for fundamental fairness. Id. at ¶ 80. It was that
sense of fundamental fairness that drove the analysis in In re C.S., a critical point that was evidently lost on the majority. The Majority’s Reliance on Inapposite Precedent {¶ 44} The majority also relies on Ohio case law decided long after the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2151.352. I do not quibble with the import of those cases in other contexts, but they are inapposite here. {¶ 45} For example, the majority’s reliance on cases like State v. Davis,
132 Ohio St.3d 25
, 2012-Ohio-1654, 968 N.E.2d 466, is entirely misplaced. {¶ 46} In Davis , we rendered a narrow holding interpreting R.C. 2921.04, a modern statute prohibiting intimidation of witnesses. We held, “A police investigation of a crime, wit hout more, is not a proceeding in a court of justice, and it does not invoke the protection of R.C. 2921.04(B) for a person who
observes the crime.” Id . at ¶ 19. {¶ 47} Davis was decided more than 40 years after the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2151.352, and the decision does not interpret R.C. 2151.352 or anyJanuary Term, 2012

15 other juvenile statute. It does not offer even the smallest glimpse of insight into the legislative thinking on juvenile rights in 1969. 5 {¶ 48} And notably, while the appeal in Davis was pending, the General Assembly sent a clear message rejecting the courts’ narrow interpretation of R.C. 2921.04, which included the phrase “criminal action or proceeding” when Davis was prosecuted. While the appeal was pending, the General Assembly amended R.C. 2921.04, clarifying that the statutor y scheme is designed to protect “any person who has or claims to have know ledge concerning a fact or facts concerning a criminal or delinquent act, whether or not criminal or delinquent child charges are actually filed.” Davis , 132 Ohio St.3d 25, 2012-Ohio-1654, 968 N.E.2d 466, ¶ 3, fn. 1, citing 2011 Sub.H.B. No. 20, effective June 4, 2012. If anything, the General Assembly’s response to Davis militates in favor of holding that the right to counsel precedes the filing of formal charges. {¶ 49} Further, our holding in Davis was driven in part by the rule that we must construe ambiguity in criminal statutes in favor of the defendant and against the state. That rule does not support the majority’s holding in construing R.C. 2151.352. Rather, it supports the notion that we must generously read R.C.

5. Rice v. United States , 356 F.2d 709, 710-712 (8th Cir.1966), a case in which union laborers were intimidated into withdrawing grievances they had filed with the National Labor Relations Board, is a far better explanation of how legisl ative bodies viewed “proceedings” in the context of witness-intimidation statutes at the time. There, the federal appeals court expansively interpreted the term “proceeding” to reach the filing of a preliminary charge filed with an administrative agency even though the agency had never filed a formal complaint. Rice at 712. The court broadly interpreted the term “proceeding” as “a comprehensive term meaning the action of proceeding—a particular step or series of st eps, adopted for accomplishing something,” thus including all steps from the inception of an action to its conclusion. Id. In doing so, it noted the importance of understanding the legislative intent behind the word. The court explained that the purpose of the statute at issue in Rice was to punish obstruction of the administrative process by impeding a witness in any proceeding before a go vernmental agency. The court stressed that the statute reached intimidation “ at any stage of the proceedings, be it adjudicative or investigative. Congress did not limit the term ‘proceeding’ as used in [the witness-intimidation statute] to only those acts committed after a formal stage was reached, and we cannot so limit the term .” (Emphasis added.) Id.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

16 2151.352 in favor of the juvenile’s rights, including his right to counsel and due process. The majority does the opposite; it reads the statute in favor of the state. {¶ 50} The majority opinion also relies on State v. Ostrowski , 30 Ohio St.2d 34, 282 N.E.2d 359 (1972), for the propos ition that we interpreted an earlier version of R.C. 2151.352 to ensure that j uveniles have counsel or their parents present at any hearing. That statement is wholly misleading. {¶ 51} The full context of the quote used by the majority establishes that
in Ostrowski , we were concerned with the seque stration of witnesses, including a juvenile’s parents, and not the right to have those parents, or counsel, present during the proceedings:

Taken as a whole, the purpose of R.C. 2151.352 is to insure to the juvenile his right to couns el and/or his right to have his parents present at any hearing. In our opinion, such a provision is
not intended to and does not take aw ay from a trial court its basic right to order a separation of witnesses until such time as such witnesses have testified. During such time the exclusion is not of parents, as such, but instead is the exclusion of witnesses. Moreover, during such time as the parents were so excluded, the juvenile was fully and adequately represented by two attorneys. Under these circumst ances, no possible prejudice to the juvenile could result from such exclusion.

(Emphasis sic.) Id. at 43. {¶ 52} Even if Ostrowski had not been focused on the issue of sequestration, let us be clear that Ostrowski addressed proceedings in court—not custodial interrogations—in which the juve nile at issue had the benefit of twoJanuary Term, 2012

17 attorneys. Thus, in this case, in which a juvenile had no counsel during a custodial interrogation, Ostrowski is of no value. {¶ 53} It is a difficult task to attempt to define “proceedings” by looking to cases that analyzed the term in the era in which R.C. 2151.352 was enacted. This is particularly true given that while the General Assembly was crafting R.C. 2151.352, the federal courts were struggling to define and interpret “proceedings” in quasi-judicial proceedings like administrative proceedings. {¶ 54} In a host of cases, the federal courts interpreted “proceedings” to reach investigations conducte d by administrative agencies long before any formal complaint or indictment was filed in court. For example, in 1964, the District of Columbia District Court considered a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation to be a “proceeding.” United States v. Batten , 226 F.Supp. 492, 494 (D.D.C.1964). And soon thereafter, the Si xth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a conviction for giving false invoices to an investigator in a Federal Trade Commission case, holding that the term “proceeding” has a broad scope, “encompassing both the investigative and adjudicative functions of a department or agency.” United States v. Fruchtman , 421 F.2d 1019, 1021 (6th Cir.1970). {¶ 55} Admittedly, the statutory schemes at issue in Batten and
Fruchtman are not any more akin to R.C. 2151.352 than the cases cited by the majority. But they illustrate that at the time the General Assembly used the word “proceedings” in R.C. 2151.352, the courts were not limiting its definition to the events that occur after the formal filing of charges in a court. Indeed, neither lawmakers nor judges of that era myopicall y viewed the term “proceedings” in the manner the majority suggests here. As the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals succinctly stated after reviewing cases like Rice and Batten :

In sum, the term “proceeding” is not, as one might believe, limited to something in the nature of a trial. The growth andS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

18 expansion of agency activities have resulted in a meaning being given to “proceeding” which is more inclusive and which no longer limits itself to formal activities in a court of law. Rather, the investigation or search for the true facts such as that which is
described in the indictment he re is not to be ruled a nonproceeding simply because it is pre liminary to indictment and trial.

United States v. Browning , 572 F.2d 720, 724 (10th Cir.1978). {¶ 56} Having illustrated the reasons why the majority’s contextualization is improper, I turn to one that accurately illuminates the statute.
T HE P ROPER C ONTEXT R.C. 2151.352 Codifies and Expands a Juvenile’s Constitutional Rights {¶ 57} This court recognizes that R.C. 2151.352 is the legislative
embodiment of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Gault

. In re C.S ., 115 Ohio St.3d 267, 2007-Ohio-4919, 874 N.E.2d 1177, at ¶ 83. “Indeed, through R.C. 2151.352, the legislature provi ded a statutory right to appointed counsel that goes beyond constitutional requirements.” Id. , citing In re Williams
, 101 Ohio St.3d 398, 2004-Ohio-1500, 805 N.E.2d 1110, ¶ 15, and State ex rel. Asberry v. Payne , 82 Ohio St.3d 44, 46, 693 N.E.2d 794 (1998). {¶ 58} We must look to the constitutional requirements that the statute embodies. And after doing so, we must be true to them and to the statutory right that exceeds those requirements. Relevant Supreme Court Precedent {¶ 59} The General Assembly enacted our juvenile-delinquency statutes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decisions in watershed cases like Kent v. United
States , 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), and Gault

. See In re
C.S. Those decisions, and their rationales, control here. So, too, do the court’s contemporaneous pronouncements on the Fifth Amendment right against self-January Term, 2012

19 incrimination in Miranda , which was announced shortly before Ohio’s enactment
of R.C. 2151.352. {¶ 60} The Fifth Amendment protects an individual from being compelled to be a witness against himself, whether in a custodial interrogation or in court after formal charges have been brought. See Bram v. United States , 168 U.S. 532, 542-543, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897). In Miranda , the Supreme Court explained those rights, holding that a poli ce officer, before questioning a suspect in custody, must warn the suspect of the right to remain silent and that anything said during interrogation could be used against the suspect in court, that the suspect has a right to have an attorney pr esent during questioning, and that if the suspect cannot afford an attorney but de sires one, the court w ill appoint one prior to any questioning. Miranda , 384 U.S. at 478-479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. {¶ 61} The Miranda warning is more than fodder for television and movie depictions of police work. Its purpose is “to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.” Id. at 458. Indeed, the warning concerning a suspect’s right to counsel is designed to ensure th at the privilege against self-incrimination “remains unfettered throughout the interrogation process.” Id. at 469. That protection is critical for all individua ls, but particularly for juveniles. {¶ 62} As the Supreme Court recently reiterated, by their very nature, custodial police interrogations entail inherently compelling pressures. J.D.B. v.
North Carolina , ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2394, 2401, 180 L.Ed.2d 310 (2011), citing Miranda at 467. Those pressures are heightened for juveniles:

Even for an adult, the physical and psychological isolation of custodial interrogation can “undermine the individual’s will to resist and * * * compel him to sp eak where he would not otherwise do so freely.” [ Miranda at 467.] Indeed, the pressure of custodial interrogation is so immense that it “can induce a frighteningly highS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

20 percentage of people to confess to crimes they never committed.” Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 [321], 129 S.Ct. 1558, 1570, 173 L.Ed.2d 443 (2009) (citing Drizin & Leo, The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World, 82 N.C.L.Rev. 891, 906-907 (2004)); see also Miranda, 384 U.S., at 455, n. 23, 86 S.Ct. 1602 [16 L.Ed.2d 694]. That risk is all the more troubling— and recent studies suggest, all the more acute—when the subject of custodial interrogation is a juvenile.

Id., ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. at 2401, 180 L.Ed.2d 310. {¶ 63} Given the importance of the Fifth Amendment’s protections against self-incrimination, it is not surprising that the year after the Supreme Court issued
Miranda , the court announced its decision in Gault , which held that the concept of Fifth Amendment rights set forth in Miranda applied to juveniles. Gault , 387 U.S. at 55, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527. In doing so, the court made clear that the juvenile’s right to counsel extended to the juvenile’s interactions with police as well as in any courtroom hearings that might follow the interaction with police:

The participation of counsel will, of course, assist the police,
Juvenile Courts and appellate tri bunals in administering the privilege. If counsel was not pres ent for some permissible reason when an admission was obtained, the gr eatest care must be taken to
assure that the admission was volunt ary, in the sense not only that it was not coerced or suggested, but also that it was not the product of ignorance of rights or of adoles cent fantasy, fright or despair.

(Emphasis added.) Id.January Term, 2012

21 {¶ 64} The rationale for the Supreme Cour t’s holdings was not shrouded in mystery. Rather, the court had previous ly discussed the need for a juvenile to have parents or counsel present during in terrogations. “[A juvenile] cannot be compared with an adult in full possession of his senses and knowledgeable of the consequences of his admissions.” Gallegos v. Colorado , 370 U.S. 49, 54, 82 S.Ct. 1209, 8 L.Ed.2d 325 (1962). A juvenile in police custody is often in need of “more mature judgment” from an adult relative or counsel, who can give the juvenile “the protection which his own immaturity could not.” Id. {¶ 65} That understanding of the limitations on a juvenile’s cognitive abilities and legal capacity was not new to the court or created by it. Indeed, as recognized by Blackstone, the common la w is replete with examples of how juveniles are treated differently in the law. J.D.B., ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. at 2403-2404, 180 L.Ed.2d 310, c iting 1 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, *464-465.

The concept of establishing different standards for a juvenile is an accepted legal principle since minors generally hold a subordinate and protected status in our legal system. There are legally and socially recognized differences between the presumed responsibility of adults and minors. Indeed the juvenile justice system, which deals with most offenses committed by those under eighteen, is substantially different in philosophy and procedure from the adult system. This State, like all the others, has recognized the fact that juveniles many times lack the capacity and responsibility to realize the full cons equences of their actions. As a result of this recognition minors are unable to execute a binding contract, unable to convey real pr operty, and unable to marry of their own free will. It would indeed be inconsistent and unjust toS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

22 hold that one whom the State deems incapable of being able to marry, purchase alcoholic bevera ges, or even donate their own blood, should be compelled to stand on the same footing as an adult when asked to waive important Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights at a time most critical to him and in an atmosphere most foreign and unfamiliar.

(Citations omitted.) Lewis v. State , 259 Ind. 431, 437, 288 N.E.2d 138 (1972). {¶ 66} In light of the long-held understanding of the unique place juveniles occupy in the law and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gault and
Miranda , state high courts, in the era in which R.C. 2151.352 was enacted, often held that the government may not use a juvenile’s statement or confession at a subsequent trial or hearin g unless the juvenile and th e juvenile’s parents were informed of the juvenile’s rights to counsel and to remain silent. See, e.g., People
v. Burton , 6 Cal.3d 375, 99 Cal.Rptr. 1, 491 P.2d 793 (1971); Lewis at 438; In re
S.H. , 61 N.J. 108, 293 A.2d 181 (1972). The decisions of our sister, the Indiana Supreme Court, are illustrative of this history. {¶ 67} By 1973, the Indiana high court would simply and succinctly announce, “[I]t is clear under the United Stat es Supreme Court rule that a juvenile who is alleged to be delinquent is entitle d to the assistance of counsel at any interrogation that may take place, and at the hearing before the juvenile judge at which disposition of this status is made.” Bridges v. State , 260 Ind. 651, 653, 299 N.E.2d 616 (1973). Since then, it properly recognized that juveniles should be afforded safeguards that are in addition to those required by Miranda when subjected to custodial interro gation; those holdings were often codified into state

statutes. See, e.g. , D.M. v. State , 949 N.E.2d 327, 333 (Ind.2011). {¶ 68} The Indiana approach is consistent with our decision in In re C.S., in which we more clearly enunciated our protective philosophy of juvenile justiceJanuary Term, 2012

23 that recognizes the realities of modern delinquency proceedings. That philosophy is not reserved only for our courtroom s. Rather, it permeates custodial interrogation as well, consistent with the Supreme Court’s teachings in Miranda
, Gault
, and J.D.B., and the fundamental fairness that due process rights are intended to protect. {¶ 69} The majority opinion defies law, logic, and common sense in suggesting that a statute that goes be yond constitutional requirements must be considered without any considera tion of constituti onal requirements. 6 Thus, the majority casts aside those constitutional commands, as well as our precedent, and reframes the issue before us as simply one of statutory language. In doing so, the majority approach impermissibly fails to consider the protections set forth in
Miranda simply because M.W. purportedly waived those rights under the statute.
C ONCLUSION {¶ 70} The General Assembly enacted R.C. 2151.352 in response to a series of directives from the United States Supreme Court calling for courts to ensure fundamental fairness in juven ile proceedings, including protecting juveniles’ right, from custodial interrogation through adjudication, not to incriminate themselves. Given those purposes, the majority’s construction of R.C. 2151.352 improperly vitiates the very purpos e of the statute an d thus violates the canon of statutory construction that fo rbids reading statutes in a manner that

6. The majority’s opinion is curious, at best, given that its author dissented from the holding in In re C.S. because he concluded that the holding “invades the province of a parent’s role in raising his or her child” and in making important decisions that have significant repercussions in the child’s life. In re C.S. , 115 Ohio St.3d 267, 2007-Ohio-4919, 874 N.E.2d 1177, at ¶ 125 (O’Donnell, J., dissenting). Undoubtedly, parents can play a critical role in assisting their minor children during a custodial interrogation, as the Supreme Court has made clear. See, e.g. , Gallegos , 370 U.S. at 54, 82 S.Ct. 1209, 8 L.Ed.2d 325; Haley v. Ohio , 332 U.S. 596, 599-600, 68 S.Ct. 302, 92 L.Ed. 224 (1948). But the majority’s analysis here does not foreclose the use of a statement made by a 15-year-old boy who did not have the benefit of counsel or his parents or guardian during a custodial interrogation. The cust odial interrogation is at least as important as the events that subsequently unfold in court, and given its repercussions, a child must be afforded the right to counsel and parents during that period.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

24 leads to absurd results or that defeats the purpose for which the statute was passed. More importantly, it offends f undamental notions of due process and
fairness. {¶ 71} The majority’s holding implicitly endorses a system in which the rights our federal and state constitutions were designed to protect, as expressed in
Miranda
, Gault, and C.S., are offended. I cannot counten ance such a holding, and thus I strongly dissent.
P FEIFER and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.

__________________ William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel T. Van and Richard Hanrahan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee, state of
Ohio. Timothy Young, State Public Defend er, and Amanda J. Powell, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant, M.W. Marsha L. Levick, urging reversal for amicus curiae Juvenile Law Center. Kim Brooks Tandy, urging reversal for amicus curiae Children’s Law
Center. Nadia Seeratan, urging reversal fo r amicus curiae National Juvenile
Defender Center. Joshua Tepfer, urging reversal fo r amicus curiae Center on Wrongful
Convictions of Youth. James L. Handiman, urging reversal for amicus curiae American Civil
Liberties Union of Ohio.

______________________