State v. Black
2017 Ohio 4136
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Montrell Black was indicted for first-degree rape for sexual conduct with a child under 13 based on an incident at an Econo Lodge in June 2012.
- The alleged victim, J.L., gave detailed statements and a recorded forensic interview within 48 hours describing sex with a man called “Hood/Hoodie”; a SANE exam documented injuries consistent with sexual activity.
- At trial J.L., then 15, recanted on the stand, denying sexual contact, but her prior recorded interview and statements to officers and the SANE nurse were played/introduced.
- DNA testing of J.L.’s underwear/shorts produced a male profile later matched via CODIS to Black; forensic analysts testified Black could not be excluded as a contributor.
- Jailhouse calls introduced by the State showed Black (identifying as Hood) attempting to persuade others, including J.L.’s aunt, to get J.L. not to appear or to recant.
- The jury convicted Black; he was sentenced to life with parole possible after 10 years and designated a Tier III sex offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence | Evidence (victim’s out-of-court statements, SANE findings, DNA, jail calls) supports verdict | Recantation at trial and alternative explanations for DNA undermine conviction | Affirmed — jury did not lose its way; credibility and inconsistencies for jury to resolve |
| Sufficiency of evidence / denial of Crim.R. 29 motion | State produced competent evidence on every element (victim <13; sexual conduct; DNA corroboration) | Recantation eliminated sufficient evidence; case should have been acquitted | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to State, reasonable minds could convict |
| Motion for judgment of acquittal at close of State's case | State’s evidence (prior statements, SANE, recovered clothing) supported submission to jury | Insufficient because principal witness recanted | Overruled — State’s case was legally sufficient to go to jury |
| Whether trial court abused discretion declaring the victim a hostile witness | Victim’s trial testimony materially differed from prior statements; surprise and affirmative damage shown | Declaration improper because alleged lack of inconsistency or surprise | Affirmed — trial court properly found surprise and affirmative damage and allowed leading questioning |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 (deference to factfinder on credibility)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (credibility determinations for trial factfinder)
- State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (sufficiency standard review)
- State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (standard for Crim.R. 29 sufficiency review)
- State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 (leading-question definition and witness interrogation)
- State v. Diehl, 67 Ohio St.2d 389 (trial court discretion on declaring hostile witnesses)