State. Todd, 2017 Ohio 4355

Defendant Thomas J. Todd was indicted on multiple counts arising from sexual-contact allegations by A.D., a minor; after some counts were dismissed, a jury convicted Todd of four counts of Gross Sexual Imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)) and one count of Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles (R.C. 2907.31(A)(1),(F)).
Allegations spanned three time periods: Summer 2015, Fall 2015, and Spring 2016; a bill of particulars mirrored those timeframes rather than specific dates.
The victim testified to repeated inappropriate touching, exposure to pornography, threats involving a rifle to coerce compliance, and several specific incidents corresponding to the charged counts.
Child-services interviews (one recorded and played at trial) and anatomical drawings corroborated many of the victim’s disclosures; a second interview (unrecorded due to a technical failure) added further details.
The jury acquitted Todd on seven other counts, demonstrating selective acceptance of the victim’s testimony; the trial court sentenced Todd to an aggregate 12-year prison term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: Victim’s testimony and corroborating interviews/drawings were credible and supported convictions	Todd: Victim’s testimony was vague/inconsistent and insufficient to sustain convictions	Court: Jury was the factfinder, reasonably credited the victim for convicted counts; convictions not against manifest weight; assignment overruled
Whether broad timeframes in indictment/bill of particulars denied due process	State: Precise dates not required for child-abuse cases; timeframes and particulars were sufficient to give notice	Todd: Wide date ranges prejudiced defense preparation and fairness	Court: Timeframes tied to locations/events and bill of particulars described specific acts; defendant received adequate notice and opportunity to defend; assignment overruled

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (establishes manifest-weight standard and appellate role as "thirteenth juror")
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (credibility and weight of testimony are for the trier of fact)
State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61 (a factfinder may believe all, part, or none of a witness’s testimony)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (appellate courts should not substitute their credibility determinations for those of the trier of fact)