State v. B.J.T.
101 N.E.3d 62
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant B.J.T. lived with victim H.T., his stepdaughter; H.T. reported repeated sexual assaults from Sept. 2015–Apr. 2016 when she was 15, including digital vaginal penetration and touching of breasts/buttocks.
- Indictment: eight counts of sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(5), third/finally treated as third-degree counts) and seven counts of gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(5), fourth-degree). Bench trial resulted in convictions on all counts.
- Trial evidence: H.T.’s detailed testimony of multiple incidents, her April 21, 2016 disclosure and contemporaneous texts from defendant apologizing and asking her not to tell, a recorded police interview in which defendant admitted inappropriate touching, and recorded jail calls. Medical exam showed no injuries but listed “sexual child abuse, suspected.”
- Post-trial, Judge Gilb found defendant guilty; sentencing was delayed until Judge Gilb’s term ended and Judge Oda sentenced defendant. Judge Oda reviewed the PSI, trial exhibits, and Judge Gilb’s handwritten trial notes (not part of the official record) and imposed consecutive 42-month terms on sexual-battery counts (aggregate 28 years) and classified defendant as a Tier III sex offender.
- Appeal: defendant challenged (1) sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence for convictions, (2) sentencing judge’s reliance on trial judge’s handwritten notes and failure to familiarize himself via the official trial record, and (3) consecutive/excessive sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency and manifest weight of sexual-battery convictions (penetration element) | State: H.T.’s testimony proved digital penetration across multiple incidents; corroborating admissions and texts support credibility | Defendant: Penetration unsupported except by H.T.’s subjective testimony; medical exam showed no injuries, undermining penetration claim | The court held the evidence (victim testimony plus admissions/texts) was sufficient and the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
| Sufficiency and manifest weight of GSI convictions (sexual arousal/gratification) | State: repeated nocturnal entries, touching of erogenous zones, mother’s testimony about defendant masturbating, and defendant’s conduct permit inference of sexual arousal/gratification | Defendant: mother’s testimony unrelated and unlinked to charged incidents; insufficient proof of sexual purpose | The court held the evidence supported the sexual-arousal/gratification element and GSI convictions were supported and not against the weight of the evidence |
| Sentencing judge’s reliance on trial judge’s handwritten notes (due process / accurate information) | State: no timely objection below; Crim.R.25(B) permits reassignment and new judge may rely on available materials; discretion applies | Defendant: Judge Oda improperly relied on Judge Gilb’s private handwritten notes (not part of the record) instead of reading the trial transcript, denying defendant reliance on an accurate, reviewable basis for sentencing | The court found prejudicial error: relying on another judge’s private notes (not the official record) affected defendant’s substantial rights; remanded for resentencing with judge to review official transcript/records |
| Consecutive and excessive sentencing | State: sentencing within discretion and statutory factors supported consecutive terms | Defendant: aggregate 28-year consecutive sentence excessive and not supported by record | Moot in light of remand for resentencing; appellate court reserved review by reversing sentence and remanding for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (legal standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- State ex rel. Steffen v. Kraft, 67 Ohio St.3d 439 (trial judge’s handwritten notes are not public/official records)
- United States v. Jones, 982 F.2d 380 (due-process concern when sentencing judge unfamiliar with trial record)
- United States v. Larios, 640 F.2d 938 (sentencing judge must adequately familiarize with case; transcript often necessary)
- Collins v. Buchkoe, 493 F.2d 343 (reliability of information used at sentencing is a fundamental concern)