State v. Adhikari, 84 N.E.3d 282

On Jan. 13, 2015, Som Nath Adhikari (age 23), a Five Guys shift manager, was accused by 17‑year‑old employee E.B. of touching and groping her in the men’s bathroom during a cleaning task. E.B. reported the incident to her mother and police that night.
A Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted Adhikari on six counts including gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, kidnapping (with sexual‑motivation spec.), and unlawful restraint; he pled not guilty.
At trial the jury convicted Adhikari of two counts of sexual imposition (third‑degree misdemeanors) and acquitted him on the remaining counts.
The trial court sentenced him to nine months of community control and warned that violation could result in 60 days in jail; the written journal entry erroneously stated a potential six‑month jail sanction for community control violation.
This court affirmed the convictions (sufficiency and manifest‑weight reviewed), found the journal entry contained a clerical error exceeding the statutory range, and remanded for a nunc pro tunc correction to reflect the 60‑day exposure announced at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Adhikari)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for sexual imposition	E.B.’s testimony plus witness observations of her upset state and corroborating statements suffice to prove sexual contact and recklessness	No touching occurred; E.B. fabricated story; prior joking and conduct showed consent or lack of offensiveness	Convictions supported: evidence sufficient to prove sexual contact, recklessness, and statutory corroboration requirement met
Manifest weight of evidence	Jury reasonably credited E.B.; inconsistencies do not make verdict against manifest weight	Jury lost its way; E.B. lied to avoid discipline after being reprimanded	Not against manifest weight: this is not an "exceptional case" warranting reversal
Corroboration requirement under R.C. 2907.06(B)	Witnesses’ observations of E.B.’s distress and other facts provided the slight corroboration required	Testimony of upset coworkers insufficient; victim’s word unreliable	Corroboration requirement satisfied by evidence of victim’s demeanor and related circumstances
Sentencing journal entry error	Trial transcript controls; journal entry should be corrected to reflect 60‑day exposure	Journal entry misstated the possible sanction (6 months) exceeding statutory max for third‑degree misdemeanor	Remand for nunc pro tunc correction: entry must reflect the 60‑day jail exposure announced at sentencing

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishes sufficiency from manifest‑weight standards)
State v. Economo, 76 Ohio St.3d 56 (corroboration requirement for sexual‑imposition convictions; slight corroboration may suffice)
State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (a court speaks through its journal; journal controls the record)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (trial court fact‑finding and deference to juror credibility determinations)
State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (appellate deference to trial court’s credibility assessments)