In re M.G., 2016 Ohio 2677

Juvenile court adjudicated 12-year-old appellant M.G. delinquent for gross sexual imposition for an incident between Oct 2013–May 2014 in which a 6‑year‑old victim testified appellant touched the victim’s vagina, made the victim touch appellant’s vagina, and made the victim suck/apply her mouth to appellant’s exposed breast while in a bedroom closet.
Victim was almost eight at the competency hearing; court conducted voir dire (prosecutor and judge questioned the child; defense declined to question) and found the child competent to testify.
The state presented the victim, her mother, paternal grandmother, a detective, and a social worker who conducted a videotaped forensic interview; the videotape was played at the adjudicatory hearing.
Appellant and appellant’s mother testified and denied the misconduct; both described the closet as cluttered and contested whether two people could stand inside.
Juvenile court found the victim credible and competent, discredited appellant and her mother, and adjudicated appellant delinquent for gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)).
Appellant appealed, arguing (1) the victim was incompetent to testify and (2) the adjudication was against the manifest weight / not supported by sufficient evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency of child witness to testify	State: child was competent; voir dire showed ability to recall, communicate, and understand truthfulness	M.G.: child was unable to recall events, needed leading questions, voir dire was inadequate on duty to tell truth and event accuracy	Court: no abuse of discretion — voir dire showed child could receive, recall, communicate impressions and understood truth and duty to be truthful; competency finding affirmed
Manifest weight / sufficiency of evidence for gross sexual imposition	State: victim’s trial testimony and forensic interview established sexual contact (breast sucking, digital touching) in a closed closet, supporting inference of sexual arousal/gratification	M.G.: only the victim testified; inconsistencies, lack of detail, conflicting testimony from defense, and no physical evidence undermine the finding	Court: adjudication not against manifest weight; victim’s consistent testimony and circumstances (type, nature, secluded location) support inference of sexual purpose; lack of physical evidence not fatal; adjudication affirmed

State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247 (Ohio 1991) (factors for determining competency of child witness)
State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2010) (child may be competent despite inability to recall all facts; must show general perception, recall, and understanding of truthfulness)
State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438 (Ohio 1998) (permissible scope of competency inquiry and assessing child testimony)
State v. Clark, 71 Ohio St.3d 466 (Ohio 1994) (trial court is in best position to judge witness credibility)
State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (Ohio 2005) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review equivalent to adult criminal cases)