In re B.J.
2021 Ohio 3926
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Juvenile B.J. (17 at the time) was charged with five counts arising from an August 2019 hotel-party incident: two rape counts (vaginal) based on force and on substantial impairment, two rape counts (cunnilingus), and one attempted rape (vaginal by force).
- Victim D.C. testified she drank heavily, fell asleep in her hotel room, and later woke to B.J. removing her underwear and penetrating her vaginally despite her saying “no” and trying to push him away.
- D.C. reported the assault to police, underwent a SANE exam, identified B.J. in a photo lineup, and DNA from B.J. matched material in the rape kit.
- After a bench trial the juvenile court found B.J. delinquent on Counts 1, 2, and 5 (vaginal rape/attempt) and not delinquent on Counts 3 and 4 (cunnilingus). The court ordered ODYS commitment terms (one-year minimum per count; Count 2 consecutive to Count 1), producing a two-year minimum aggregate.
- On appeal the court affirmed the adjudications (sufficiency and weight of evidence), rejected trial-evidence objections and nunc pro tunc issues as moot or harmless, but held the adjudications were allied offenses and vacated the disposition for resentencing with the State to elect one allied offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Record entry/nunc pro tunc (assignment 1) | Entry language was adequate; any clerical defects can be corrected | Entry inconsistently said the whole complaint proven; remand for nunc pro tunc needed | Moot after appellate remand; court ordered and accepted nunc pro tunc correction |
| Objection to questioning about phone call (assignment 2) | Prosecutor: question sought propensity/improper rape‑shield evidence | B.J.: question impeached witness credibility about prior contact | Trial court did not abuse discretion in sustaining objection; not improper impeachment |
| Sufficiency and manifest weight of evidence (assignments 3–4) | State: D.C.’s testimony, SANE report, photo ID, and DNA provided sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt | B.J.: inconsistencies in D.C.’s statements, lack of injuries, and exculpatory facts undermine credibility and sufficiency | Adjudications for two rapes (vaginal) and attempted rape were supported; neither sufficiency nor manifest‑weight grounds for reversal |
| Allied‑offenses merger for sentencing (assignment 5) | State conceded offenses arose in one course of conduct and must merge | B.J.: urged merger so only one disposition imposed | Court sustained merger issue, vacated disposition, remanded for the State to elect which allied offense to pursue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest‑weight standards and sets review framework)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180 (1998) (application of Jackson sufficiency standard)
- State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248 (2002) (definition of attempt and substantial‑step analysis)
- State v. Woods, 48 Ohio St.2d 127 (1976) (attempt committed when defendant takes substantial step toward commission)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (manifest‑weight reversal is reserved for the exceptional case)
- Cleveland v. Welms, 169 Ohio App.3d 600 (2006) (bench‑trial manifest‑weight review standards)