State v. B.C.M.
2017 Ohio 1497
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile complaint charged 15-year-old B.C.M. with two counts of rape (vaginal and anal) of his then-eight-year-old sister; adjudicatory bench trial held in Warren County Juvenile Court.
- Victim testified with difficulty; described contact as her brother’s "wee wee" touching her "wee wee" and "bum bum," sometimes saying "inside" and sometimes "outside," and that it "spread" and "dug deep" and "hurt."
- A recorded one-hour forensic interview of the victim at a children’s advocacy center existed; the court allowed the state to play the video to refresh the victim’s recollection but excluded the video as substantive evidence.
- The trial court, acting as factfinder, adjudicated B.C.M. delinquent on both rape counts; B.C.M. appealed on sufficiency/weight, admissibility of video, and speedy-trial grounds; the State cross-appealed the exclusion of the interview under Evid.R. 803(4).
- The appellate court reviewed sufficiency/weight under criminal standards, evaluated the use of the video to refresh recollection and whether admission as substantive evidence under the medical-diagnosis hearsay exception was required, and applied Barker factors to the speedy-trial claim.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | B.C.M.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove vaginal and anal penetration | Victim’s trial testimony (including refreshed details like "little drops," "spread," and "dug deep") sufficed to show penetration beyond a reasonable doubt | Testimony was inconsistent and often said touching was "outside," so evidence of penetration was insufficient | Affirmed — evidence (if believed) supported slight penetration for both counts; conviction not against manifest weight |
| Reliance on prior inconsistent statements/hearsay for adjudication | Impeachment and witness affirmations provided admissible bases; even if improperly admitted, appellate sufficiency review considers all admitted evidence | Court relied on inadmissible hearsay (victim’s statements to social worker) to adjudicate guilt | Overruled — court did not rely on inadmissible evidence; impeachment/refreshed testimony and trial testimony were admissible bases; sufficiency review considers evidence admitted at trial |
| Playing the entire forensic interview to refresh recollection; court viewing video while factfinder | Playing the video was necessary to refresh the young victim’s memory; court’s presence was acceptable where video not admitted substantively | Playing entire hour was overbroad; only relevant portions should be used; court should not view video while factfinder | Affirmed (but with qualification) — allowing the video to refresh was within discretion; playing full hour was error but harmless because video was surplusage; court’s presence not reversible error |
| Speedy trial (103 days detained pretrial) | Delay was not presumptively prejudicial and justified; no demonstrated prejudice | 103 days in detention violated constitutional speedy-trial rights | Overruled — 103 days not presumptively prejudicial; Barker factors do not favor reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (describing sufficiency review standard)
- State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202 (reviewing sufficiency analysis where some evidence may have been improperly admitted)
- State v. Ferguson, 5 Ohio St.3d 160 (rape conviction insufficient where no evidence of penetration was offered)
- State v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290 (analysis of child-interview admissibility under medical-diagnosis exception)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (four-factor constitutional speedy-trial balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (delay becomes presumptively prejudicial as it approaches one year)