State v. Barrie, 70 N.E.3d 1093

Background

Victim A.R., a Renaissance Hotel housekeeper, testified that on Nov. 7, 2013 appellant (a hotel houseman) forcibly touched her buttocks and breasts, rubbed his genitals against her, grabbed her neck, made sexual statements, and returned 10–15 minutes later to continue touching her. She reported the incidents to supervisors the same day.
Appellant was indicted on two counts of gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05), each a fourth-degree felony; a jury convicted him on both counts and the court sentenced him to concurrent 16-month terms, five years postrelease control, and Tier I sex-offender classification.
At trial the court appointed a language-skilled Krio interpreter (Fatima Dabo) after explaining efforts to obtain a certified interpreter; the interpreter executed an oath and the court conducted a colloquy about qualifications. A different interpreter (Fatmata Berete) was appointed at sentencing, but the record did not reflect her qualifications.
Appellant raised four assignments of error on appeal: (1) insufficiency of the evidence; (2) manifest weight; (3) use of uncertified/unqualified interpreters at trial and sentencing; and (4) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to interpreters.
The appellate court reviewed sufficiency/weight de novo (giving deference to the jury), and reviewed unpreserved interpreter claims for plain error; ineffective-assistance claims were considered under Strickland prejudice/deficiency standards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for gross sexual imposition	State: testimony established touching of erogenous zones and comments showing sexual purpose	Barrie: touching was not proven to be for sexual arousal or gratification	Held: Evidence sufficient; touching of buttocks and breasts + sexual statements support element of sexual purpose.
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: victim credible; jury entitled to weigh credibility	Barrie: victim’s account inconsistent (resumed work, delay in reporting, length of second incident, no corroborating witnesses)	Held: No miscarriage of justice; jury entitled to believe victim; conviction not against manifest weight.
Appointment and qualification of interpreters	State: court reasonably appointed language-skilled interpreter after attempting to obtain certified/provisional interpreters; oath and on-the-record colloquy occurred	Barrie: interpreters were uncertified/unqualified; trial and sentencing required certified or provisionally qualified interpreters and qualification on record	Held: No plain error. Court detailed efforts to obtain certified interpreter, qualified language-skilled interpreter on record at trial, and interpreter was sworn; sentencing interpreter deficiency did not show prejudice.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to interpreters	State: counsel asked client if he understood interpreter and elicited assent; no prejudice shown	Barrie: counsel deficient for not objecting to interpreter qualifications	Held: Overruled. Counsel’s performance not shown deficient or prejudicial under Strickland; no reasonable probability of different outcome.

Key Cases Cited

Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (application of Strickland in Ohio; prejudice/deficiency framework)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (plain-error standard in criminal cases)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (importance of court compliance at sentencing and communicating obligations to defendant)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (articulating manifest-weight review as ‘thirteenth juror’ function)