State v. Bennett, 2018 Ohio 3623

In August 2016 at Dewey’s Pizza, K.D. testified defendant Dale Bennett followed her into the restaurant, massaged her shoulders, and rubbed his semi‑erect genitals against her clothed buttocks for several seconds; she later reported the incident to staff and police.
An employee (Robbins) saw Bennett leave quickly through an emergency exit carrying a bag over his shoulder; Robbins had previously seen him wear a fanny pack at the restaurant on an earlier visit.
Officer Seitzman recorded a phone interview with Bennett in which Bennett at first denied being there, later admitted touching a woman’s shoulders and claimed his sporran may have brushed her buttocks.
Bennett testified he wore a kilt with a sporran containing personal items, denied intentional sexual contact, and said any contact was accidental while exiting; a defense character witness (Marlow) testified to Bennett’s appropriate behavior around women.
The trial court excluded an earlier uncharged Dewey’s incident on motion in limine, but allowed the prosecutor on cross‑examination to ask the character witness about a hypothetical describing that prior conduct; Bennett was convicted of sexual imposition, sentenced to probation, fined, and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecution properly cross‑examined defense character witness about a specific prior uncharged act after defense opened the door by eliciting good‑character testimony	The state argued defense opened the door; Evid.R. 404(A)(1) and 405(A) permit inquiry into specific instances to rebut character evidence and test credibility	Bennett argued the questions admitted impermissible evidence of uncharged misconduct despite the in limine ruling and prejudiced the bench trial	Court: Overruled objection — cross‑examination was proper under Evid.R. 404(A)(1)/405(A); prosecutor had good‑faith basis; no prejudice in a bench trial.
Whether evidence was sufficient and verdict not against manifest weight for sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.06(A)(1)	State argued the totality (following victim, shoulder massage, rubbing semi‑erect genitals on buttocks, immediate exit, inconsistent statements) permits inference of sexual arousal/gratification and knowledge the contact was offensive	Bennett argued touching was accidental (sporran) and evidence insufficient; contesting credibility of witnesses	Court: Conviction affirmed — evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight; trial court credited victim and employee over defendant.

State v. Elliott, 25 Ohio St.2d 249 (recognizes cross‑examination of character witness about particular acts to test credibility)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (trier of fact determines witness credibility; standard for reviewing conflicts in testimony)
State v. Eubank, 60 Ohio St.2d 183 (presumption that judge in bench trial considers only competent evidence)
State v. Gillard, 40 Ohio St.3d 226 (presumption of prosecutor’s good‑faith basis for questioning when not challenged)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review: whether reasonable juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest‑weight review)