2017 Ohio 7233
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On Feb. 14–15, 2015, A.E., an 18‑year‑old recovering heroin addict, invited 16‑year‑old T.M. to her grandmother’s apartment after online contact; T.M. brought Xanax and alcohol and later two other men (one known as “Tom‑Tom”) arrived.
- A.E. testified she repeatedly said “no,” tried to push T.M. away, fell asleep from drugs/alcohol, and was vaginally penetrated by T.M.; Tom‑Tom later forced her to perform oral sex while he had vaginal intercourse with her; DNA matched both males.
- T.M. admitted taking A.E.’s laptop and conceding consensual sexual contact but denied rape; police charged T.M. with multiple rape counts and theft; some counts were later dismissed.
- A magistrate adjudicated T.M. delinquent of two counts of rape and one count of theft; T.M. filed objections and later a motion for new trial alleging newly discovered evidence (Tom‑Tom’s subsequent acquittal would allow his testimony).
- The trial court denied the new‑trial motion and overruled objections; on appeal, the Ninth District affirmed the adjudication and disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (T.M.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that force compelled sexual conduct | Evidence (victim testimony, medical narrative, DNA) shows force or threat of force; force may be inferred from circumstances | T.M. contends sexual acts were consensual; challenges sufficiency as to force | Court: Sufficient evidence of force; adjudication for two rape counts affirmed |
| Denial of motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (Tom‑Tom acquittal) | Motion did not show what Tom‑Tom would testify to or that his testimony would likely change the result | T.M. argued Tom‑Tom’s acquittal made him available and his testimony would tip weight in favor of defense | Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion; movant failed Petro factors (no affidavit or proffer of testimony) |
| Ineffective assistance of post‑trial counsel for failing to obtain Tom‑Tom affidavit | N/A (claim against counsel) | Counsel failed to secure affidavit; that omission prejudiced T.M.’s new‑trial motion | Court: No ineffective assistance; prejudice speculative because Tom‑Tom’s testimony/content unknown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for appellate sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (1992) (force or threat of force can be inferred from surrounding circumstances)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (six‑factor test for granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)