State v. Banks
2017 Ohio 8777
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In June 2016, 17‑year‑old H.E. went into Target fitting rooms; Kevin Banks followed in five seconds and repeatedly positioned himself in a stall directly across from her.
- While H.E. was partially undressed she observed an arm holding a cell phone above the door of the stall across from hers with the camera pointed at her; she alerted store staff and identified Banks.
- Banks exited his stall 25 seconds after H.E., left the store through the cart doors, removed his tank top and used it to cover his rear license plate while fleeing in a maroon truck; a retired officer followed and notified police.
- Officers stopped Banks, recovered a phone, and Banks told a detective he had been taking pictures of himself in the fitting room and ran because he became scared.
- Banks was charged with voyeurism (bench-tried) and tampering with evidence (jury-tried); he was convicted on both counts and sentenced to 24 months aggregate imprisonment.
- On appeal Banks argued insufficient evidence/manifest weight, improper admission of prior-act evidence/plain error, and prejudicial joinder; the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Banks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of voyeurism evidence | Evidence showed surreptitious invasion with phone and conduct permitting inference of sexual purpose | No proof of surreptitious recording or sexual arousal intent | Conviction affirmed — evidence (if believed) allowed inference of surreptitious invasion and sexual purpose |
| Sufficiency of tampering evidence | Bank covered plate after incident; circumstantial evidence supports knowledge that investigation was likely and intent to impair evidence | No knowledge an investigation was pending/likely; concealment was brief and futile (front plate visible) | Conviction affirmed — jury could infer Banks knew an investigation was likely and intended to impair evidence availability |
| Manifest weight challenge | N/A (State adduces evidence; trier of fact credibility deference) | Convictions weigh against manifest weight of evidence | Overruled — appellant failed to meaningfully develop manifest‑weight argument; evidence did not compel reversal |
| Admission of prior acts / plain error | Prior-act testimony elicited on cross was proper or harmless; no contemporaneous objection so only plain error review | Admission of unrelated arrests and mental‑health statements violated Evid.R. 404(B) and statutes, denied fair trial | Overruled — appellant forfeited by not objecting and did not develop plain‑error showing; no manifest miscarriage of justice shown |
| Prejudicial joinder (Crim.R. 14) | Joinder was proper because offenses arose from same transaction and evidence would overlap | Joinder forced choice to testify on tampering but remain silent on voyeurism; admission of other‑act evidence prejudiced him | Overruled — joinder favored; appellant did not carry Schaim burden or analyze severance factors; court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (discusses sufficiency and manifest weight standards)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (manifest weight review and "thirteenth juror" role)
- State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (test for prejudicial joinder and factors for severance)
- State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339 (tampering — ‘‘likelihood’’ measured at time of act; proof requirements)
- State v. Barry, 145 Ohio St.3d 354 (no imputed constructive knowledge for likelihood of investigation)
- State v. Huffman, 165 Ohio App.3d 518 (voyeurism: circumstantial inference of sexual purpose)
- Martin v. State, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (cited for exercise of discretion/manifest weight principles)