State v. Alex
2017 Ohio 8527
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Larry E. Alex was charged with three counts of gross sexual imposition (one third-degree, two fourth-degree) for alleged conduct with his daughter B.A. spanning 2012–2015; a jury convicted him on the third-degree count and acquitted him on the two fourth-degree counts.
- The trial court sentenced Alex to 60 months imprisonment, classified him as a Tier II sex offender, and imposed post-release control and costs; Alex timely appealed.
- Victim B.A., 15 at trial, testified to multiple incidents of inappropriate touching (restraint with straps/ropes, oral contact on breasts, touching of vagina and breasts, grabbing buttocks) and explained she initially withheld details out of fear.
- Detective Michael Rose observed the forensic interview of B.A. and testified at trial that the major facts in her initial interview and trial testimony were consistent, while acknowledging some differences over time.
- Alex admitted in a police interview to some innocuous touching (helping bathe, applying Vicks) and waking with his hand on or near B.A. while she sometimes climbed into his bed; he also described consensual bondage with adults and demonstrated basement eye bolts and straps.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Detective Rose improperly vouched for victim credibility | State: Rose’s testimony described observed consistency between interview and trial and assisted the jury; did not opine on veracity | Alex: Rose’s consistency testimony vouched for B.A., impermissibly substituting officer opinion for jury fact-finding | Court: No plain error — testimony was permissible background/bolstering (per Stowers); even if improper, no substantial-rights prejudice |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to Rose’s testimony | State: No deficiency because testimony was not improper and any error was not prejudicial | Alex: Counsel should have objected to vouching to preserve error | Court: Counsel not ineffective — no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for eliciting testimony that Alex bathed his daughter | State: Cross-exam was trial strategy; no showing of prejudice | Alex: Questioning invited damaging evidence and reinforced abuse impression | Court: Not ineffective — strategic choice and no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Whether cumulative errors warrant reversal | State: No reversible error; evidence supported conviction | Alex: Combined errors affected fairness of trial | Court: No; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (1989) (expert or lay testimony expressing an opinion on a child witness’s veracity is proscribed)
- State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260 (1998) (distinguishes Boston; permits testimony that aids jurors by explaining patterns like delayed disclosure without usurping jury's role)
- State v. Gersin, 76 Ohio St.3d 491 (1996) (supports expert testimony explaining behavior of abuse victims to assist jury credibility assessments)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain error standard under Crim.R. 52(B))
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (adopting Strickland two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient-performance and prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims)