State v. Austin
2017 Ohio 7845
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Daniel Austin was indicted on 35 counts of rape and gross sexual imposition (GSI) for alleged conduct against three young female relatives occurring when he was between ages 10 and 19; 28 counts proceeded to trial and the jury convicted on 18 counts. Sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 35 years.
- Pretrial the court dismissed seven counts as applying the juvenile statutes would be fundamentally unfair for conduct before the defendant turned 14; the State did not appeal that ruling. Additional counts were dismissed by the State during trial; the jury heard 20 counts.
- Key challenged counts involved alleged offenses that spanned indictment windows overlapping the date Austin turned 14 (Oct. 14, 2003). Austin argued R.C. 2152.02(C)(3) and 2152.12(J) (treating certain late-apprehended juveniles as adults) were unconstitutional as applied because the State failed to prove he was 14 for those alleged acts.
- Other major issues: admissibility of testimony that Austin asked his half-brother to take a polygraph in his stead; allied-offenses/merger of rape and GSI convictions; sufficiency/manifest-weight challenges; and ineffective-assistance claim about not renewing dismissal motion and not objecting to merger.
- Appellate result: affirm in part, reverse in part. Vacated seven GSI convictions the State conceded were unsupported (including one GSI the court found lacked proof the defendant was at least 14 when it occurred). Remaining convictions and most rulings were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Austin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| As-applied challenge to R.C. 2152.02(C)(3) and 2152.12(J) for counts overlapping defendant's 14th birthday | The State argued it presented evidence showing some offending occurred after Austin turned 14 within the charged time windows, so the statutes applied and prosecution as an adult was proper. | Austin argued the State failed to prove he was at least 14 for specific counts (count 1, renumbered counts 6 and 15), so application of the juvenile statutes to treat him as an adult violated due process. | Court assumed trial-court’s fairness ruling re: <14 conduct and found evidence supported that Austin committed offenses against K.R. after his 14th birthday (counts 1 and 6); those convictions stand. The State conceded and the court vacated the GSI conviction (renumbered count 15) for L.B. because no proof showed it occurred after his 14th birthday. |
| Admissibility of testimony that defendant asked half-brother to take a polygraph for him | The State offered the half-brother’s testimony to show consciousness of guilt (attempt to deceive/impede investigation), with limiting instruction. | Austin argued polygraph-related testimony and references violated due process and the Fifth Amendment because polygraph evidence is generally disfavored and unreliable. | Trial court did not abuse its discretion: testimony about asking another to impersonate him for a polygraph was admissible as conduct showing consciousness of guilt and not unduly prejudicial when properly limited; admission affirmed. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct for eliciting/arguing polygraph-related evidence | N/A (State relied on admissibility of the testimony). | Austin argued repeated references to the polygraph-related testimony in closing amounted to misconduct. | No misconduct: because the testimony was admissible, the prosecutor’s use of it at trial and in closing was not improper. |
| Merger / allied-offenses between rape and GSI convictions | The State conceded several GSI convictions lacked sufficient evidence and agreed to vacate seven GSI convictions. For remaining paired rape/GSI convictions the State argued conduct could reflect separate incidents/animus. | Austin argued paired rape and GSI convictions (same victims and timeframes) were allied offenses of similar import and should have merged, so convictions and sentences for both should not stand. | Court accepted State’s concession and vacated the seven GSI counts. For the two remaining GSI counts tied to K.R., the court found the record supported separate incidents (multiple acts over time) and no reasonable probability of allied-offenses error; those convictions did not merge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong standard)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (weight-of-the-evidence standard)
- Ruff v. Ohio, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (allied‑offenses / multi‑offense analysis)
- Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St.3d 192 (burden for as‑applied constitutional challenge)
- Hand v. State, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 (post‑crime conduct admissible to show consciousness of guilt)
- Otten v. State, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (standard for manifest‑weight review)