In re K.S., 2014 Ohio 188

Appellant K.S., age 17, was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for rape (oral sex) after an incident in a parked truck with 16-year-old H.T.; both were high‑school students.
H.T. testified K.S. pulled her head toward his exposed penis by placing his hand on her neck and placing her head near his penis; she said she felt she had no choice and performed oral sex, spit afterward, and delayed reporting.
K.S. admitted sexual contact in his police interview, contending the acts were consensual and describing mutual texting about sex; he denied placing his hand on the back of H.T.’s head or forcing her.
Detective Duemmel testified about observing H.T.’s CAC interview and K.S.’s statement, offering opinions based on ‘‘kinesic’’ (body‑language) interviewing—asserting no deception indicators for H.T. but some for K.S.
The juvenile court found H.T. credible and K.S. not credible, adjudicated K.S. delinquent for rape, classified him a Tier III sex offender, and imposed commitment (suspended under conditions).
On appeal the Fifth District affirmed sufficiency of the evidence but reversed and remanded because the trial court erred in admitting Duemmel’s kinesic‑credibility testimony without an established scientific foundation and which was prejudicial to K.S.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (K.S.)	Held
Was there sufficient evidence of force or threat to support rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2))?	H.T.’s testimony that K.S. pushed her head toward his penis, grabbed her neck, and she felt she had no choice established force; a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	K.S. argued the contact was consensual, he denied using his hand to force her head, and pointed to inconsistencies and H.T.’s failure to resist verbally or physically.	Court: Overruled K.S.’s sufficiency challenge (majority): viewed facts in prosecution’s favor, a rational trier could find force. (Note: one concurrence/dissent would have found insufficiency.)
Was Detective Duemmel’s testimony about kinesic interviewing and conclusions about credibility admissible?	State relied on Duemmel’s training and observations to contrast H.T.’s consistent interview with K.S.’s perceived indicators of deception.	K.S. objected: kinesic methods lack demonstrated scientific foundation; officer’s credibility opinions were prejudicial and usurped the factfinder’s role.	Court: Sustained K.S.’s objection on appeal — Duemmel’s kinesic testimony lacked established scientific acceptance and his credibility opinions were prejudicial; admission was reversible error; remanded for further proceedings.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (force or threat of force may be inferred from surrounding circumstances)
State v. Dye, 82 Ohio St.3d 323 (some force beyond that inherent in sex act must be proven)
State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 (force assessment considers ages, sizes, strength, and relation of parties)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (credibility and weight of testimony for trier of fact)
State v. Williams, 4 Ohio St.3d 53 (expert testimony admissibility standards)
State v. Koss, 49 Ohio St.3d 213 (novel expert testimony must have scientific acceptance)
State v. McMillan, 69 Ohio App.3d 36 (expert opinion not helpful if based on unreliable premise)