In re R.E.A., 2014 Ohio 110

Juvenile complaint (June 2011) charged R.A. with four counts of rape and four counts of gross sexual imposition based on allegations by his then-4-year-old cousin, S.L.; at trial S.L. was 8.
S.L. disclosed multiple sexual acts to medical and child-protective professionals; MetroHealth pediatrician Dr. Feingold examined and interviewed her and concluded, from a medical standpoint, she had been sexually abused; his physical exam found no abnormalities.
At the adjudicatory hearing S.L. testified to a single incident (forced oral sex) and gave inconsistent timing (variously 4–7 years old); mother and child referred to locations as "Maple," and mother testified the aunt lived in Maple Heights.
The juvenile court found R.A. delinquent on one count of rape; remaining counts were dismissed; R.A. received community control and a referral for sex-offender treatment but was not classified a juvenile sex offender.
On appeal R.A. challenged venue sufficiency, weight of the evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to Dr. Feingold’s credibility/opinion testimony.
The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the doctor’s opinion that the child was abused where that opinion rested solely on the child’s statements and no independent medical evidence supported abuse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (R.A.)	Held
Venue sufficiency	Evidence (child/mother references, MetroHealth/CCDFS involvement) shows acts occurred in Cuyahoga County	State failed to prove venue at trial; no direct testimony placing the acts in Cuyahoga County	Court: Venue proven circumstantially ("Maple" = Maple Heights in Cuyahoga County); motion to acquit on venue denied
Weight of the evidence	Child’s disclosures, Dr. Feingold’s opinion, and interviews support adjudication	Adjudication against weight; child testimony inconsistent and little corroboration	Court did not rest decision on weight claim; primary reversal on ineffective assistance
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to expert veracity opinion	Expert testimony admissible to aid factfinder (Boston)	Counsel ineffective for not objecting when Dr. Feingold opined child was abused based solely on child statements	Court: Counsel prejudicially deficient; Dr. Feingold impermissibly vouched for victim’s credibility without independent medical corroboration — reversal and new trial

State v. Nevius, 147 Ohio St. 263, 71 N.E.2d 258 (1947) (venue must be proven where offense occurred)
State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St.3d 475, 453 N.E.2d 716 (1983) (venue may be proven by facts and circumstances)
State v. Dickerson, 77 Ohio St. 34, 82 N.E. 969 (1907) (venue proof need not be express)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989) (Ohio’s statement of Strickland standard)
State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108, 545 N.E.2d 1220 (1989) (expert may aid jurors but may not testify to victim’s veracity)
State v. Eastham, 29 Ohio St.3d 307, 530 N.E.2d 409 (1988) (trial court must avoid expert testimony that usurps factfinder’s role)