State v. Biggs, 2022 Ohio 2481

In April 2021 A.I. (an adult) visited Joel Biggs and his girlfriend; after drinking and smoking, Biggs placed his hand inside A.I.’s pajama pants/underwear and massaged the outside of her vagina. A.I. removed his hand, cried, and left the room.
A.I. reported the incident, submitted to a sexual assault exam; underwear contained male DNA from at least two males but was not suitable for individual comparison.
Biggs’s phone showed searches about sexual pressure, sexual assault, and obsessive sexual behavior.
A grand jury indicted Biggs for gross sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.05(A)(1) (requiring force or threat of force). A jury convicted him; the trial court sentenced him to community control up to three years and instructed on the lesser included offense of sexual imposition.
On appeal the court held the State failed to prove the force element required for gross sexual imposition but found the evidence sufficient for the lesser included offense of sexual imposition and remanded to modify the conviction and resentence Biggs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — was there force under R.C. 2907.05(A)(1)?	State: touching inside clothing while the victim was alone supports force finding and conviction.	Biggs: only the force inherent in the contact occurred; victim removed his hand and left—no force sufficient to overcome will.	Court: Insufficient evidence of the force element for gross sexual imposition; conviction vacated.
Lesser included offense — was sexual imposition supported?	State: evidence (touching plus knowledge victim found it offensive and texts) supports sexual imposition.	Biggs: (implicit) same evidence insufficient to sustain conviction at all.	Court: Evidence sufficient for sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.06(A)(1)); remand to modify conviction and resentence.
Manifest weight challenge	State: jury verdict reasonable given testimony.	Biggs: verdict against manifest weight.	Court: Renders moot after sufficiency ruling.
Ineffective assistance — failure to call DNA expert	State: trial testimony already explained possible innocent transfer; expert unnecessary.	Biggs: counsel should have called a defense expert to explain male DNA could be from cohabitation/laundry transfer.	Court: Overruled — prevailing testimony (CBI analyst) made additional expert unlikely to change outcome.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (sets Ohio standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56, 526 N.E.2d 304 (discusses force element and its variation by victim age/relationship)
State v. Dye, 82 Ohio St.3d 323, 695 N.E.2d 763 (force must be more than that inherent in the sexual act)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (applies Strickland in Ohio)
State v. Robinson, 161 Ohio St. 213, 118 N.E.2d 517 (permitting trial-court modification to a lesser-included conviction)
State v. Wine, 140 Ohio St.3d 409, 18 N.E.3d 1207 (discussion of force standards in related contexts)
State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476 (presumption of competent counsel)