State v. Blachowski, 2019 Ohio 2331

In Feb. 2018 a Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted Scott Blachowski on 16 counts: rape, gross sexual imposition, and endangering children; several counts included sexually-violent-predator specifications.
Victim E.T. (10 at trial) testified that Blachowski began sexually abusing him from about age 4–5 through repeated incidents (oral/penile contact, forcing E.T. to touch others), often at night while the mother slept.
E.T.’s great-grandmother (P.T.) and Detective Durst corroborated delayed disclosure, family instability, and some facts about residence changes; no physical/DNA evidence existed due to delayed reporting.
Blachowski admitted to domestic abuse and other bad conduct but denied any sexual contact with E.T.; he testified in his own defense.
The jury convicted Blachowski on four rape counts, five gross sexual imposition counts, and four endangering-children counts; the trial court imposed life sentences on the rape counts.

Issue	State's Argument	Blachowski's Argument	Held
Improper juror contact during recess	Reported hallway/elevator conversation could have tainted jurors; trial court conducted a public inquiry of the jury	Court should have declared mistrial or individually interviewed jurors; failure to do so was reversible error	No abuse of discretion; general courtroom question sufficed; no mistrial — claim waived except plain error, which not shown
Opinion testimony by detective	Detective’s testimony about interview goal (“I would like them to tell the truth”) was proper background/context	Testimony implicitly vouched for victim’s veracity, violating Boston ban on expert/opinion on child credibility	No violation: detective gave no direct opinion that child was telling truth; indirect bolstering permissible; no plain error
Manifest weight of the evidence	E.T.’s testimony (if believed) was sufficient; jury was entitled to resolve credibility disputes	Testimony inconsistent/coached; lack of physical evidence and investigative gaps show convictions against manifest weight	Not an exceptional case; jury, as factfinder, reasonably believed E.T.; convictions not against manifest weight
Plain-error/waiver of objections	N/A	Appellant failed to object at trial to trial-court handling and detective testimony, limiting appellate review to plain-error	Appellant did not carry burden to show plain error; standard applied and claims rejected

State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72 (1995) (trial court must hold inquiry when improper juror communication is alleged)
State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (1989) (expert may not testify as to expert’s opinion of child-witness veracity)
State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260 (1998) (expert testimony that supports that abuse occurred may be admissible without directly opining on witness truthfulness)
State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245 (2001) (scope of voir dire/investigation into juror contact within trial court’s discretion)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain-error standard and caution in noticing plain error)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest-weight standard and rare reversal)
State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (2002) (plain-error requires outcome-affecting error)
State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (1997) (defendant bears burden to show juror bias/prejudice from improper communication)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility and weight of evidence primarily for jury)
State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (2007) (trial court best positioned to assess witness demeanor and credibility)