State v. Austin
2012 Ohio 4232
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Austin convicted of two counts of rape, possession of cocaine; SVP and RVO specifications; trial court found SVP based on current offenses and prior 1989 rape conviction
- Jury acquitted on aggravated burglary; found Austin guilty of two rape counts and cocaine possession
- DNA and other physical evidence linked Austin to the rape and to C.H.; neck saliva matched Austin; washcloths mixed DNA
- Trial court found Austin guilty of SVP/RVO specifications after reviewing 1989 rape conviction
- Judge sentenced 15 years to life for each rape offense and six months for cocaine; all terms concurrent
- Conviction and sentence challenged on sufficiency/weight, trial errors, and defense witness exclusion
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/weight of rape convictions and Crim.R. 29 | Austin argues insufficient evidence; weight undermines verdict | State shows clear force, threat, DNA links; credibility for jury | Convictions and SVP specs supported; Crim.R. 29 denied |
| SVP specification based on prior conviction Smith | Smith bars using older conviction to support SVP if charged together | Current statute allows relying on current offenses for SVP | SVP properly based on current offense; Smith distinguished |
| Sufficiency/weight of SVP findings | Evidence insufficient for likelihood of future offenses | Current offense plus history shows likelihood | Findings supported; not against weight or sufficiency |
| Prison sentence legality/within statutory range | Aggregate sentence purportedly excessive due to SVP issue | 15-to-life on each rape complies with statute | Sentence within statutory range and not an abuse of discretion |
| Exclusion of sister’s testimony | Court should allow continuance to secure records | Late notice justifies no continuance; prejudicial to state | No abuse; continuance not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1978) (standard for sufficiency review and reasonable-doubt framework)
- State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio 1992) (reasonable-doubt standard for Crim.R. 29 review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest weight of the evidence considerations)
- State v. Smith, 104 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 2004) (SVP statute interpretation pre- and post-amendment; precludes using pre-indictment convictions when charged together)
- State v. Green, 2012-Ohio-1941 (Ohio (8th Dist.)) (SVP considerations after statutory amendments; uses current offenses to satisfy SVP)