State v. Blankenburg
197 Ohio App. 3d 201
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Butler County pediatrician Blankenburg was convicted in 2009 of multiple offenses including corruption of a minor, drug trafficking, money laundering, gross sexual imposition, compelling prostitution, and pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor.
- He appealed seven assignments of error challenging indictment structure, pretrial and trial procedures, and admission of other-acts evidence.
- Counts involved ongoing course-of-conduct allegations with victims B.B. and M.K., spanning several years with acts occurring when victims were minors.
- The trial included both jury and bench verdicts on different counts, and the court treated some offenses as continuing conduct within specified time frames.
- The court ultimately affirmed the convictions, rejecting the duplicity and related arguments, and addressing challenges to amendments, dates, other-acts evidence, expert testimony, and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duplicity of charges in indictment | Blankenburg contends counts merged multiple acts, creating duplicity and jeopardy concerns. | Blankenburg argues indictment/charging was duplicitous and possibly prejudicial. | No reversible error; counts properly framed as continuing conduct within time frames. |
| Amendment of Count 1 after grand jury testimony | Count 1 amended to reflect a different time frame, potentially changing the offense charged. | Amendment altered the time frame without changing the crime, preserving identity of the offense. | Amendment did not change the offense’s identity; no prejudice; abuse of discretion not shown. |
| Specific offense dates not disclosed | State allegedly knew exact dates but failed to disclose them, violating Sellards. | Date ranges were adequate; plain error not proven. | Not plain error; dates could be narrowed without prejudicing defense. |
| Admission of numerous other-acts evidence (child erotica photos, etc.) | Other-acts evidence showed Blankenburg’s motive/plan and background; probative value outweighs prejudice. | Excessive and prejudicial; many photos improperly inflamed the jury; evidentiary rules violated. | No abuse of discretion; admitted under 404(B) and related statutes; prejudicial impact not shown to warrant reversal. |
| Expert testimony by Dr. Cooper on child erotica | Expert needed to contextualize child erotica and its relevance to motive and conduct. | Testimony invaded lay jurors’ competence and relied on photographs. | Properly admitted; Dr. Cooper qualified; testimony aided jury understanding and did not exceed scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wagers, 2010-Ohio-2311 (12th Dist. 2010) (course-of-conduct treatment allowed where dates are not essential)
- State v. Chaney, 2008-Ohio-3507 (3d Dist. 2008) (upholding conduct-based charging within time frames)
- State v. Heft, 2009-Ohio-5908 (3d Dist. 2009) (upholds differentiated counts by offense type and time period)
- State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169 (1985) (precise times/dates not usually required; amendments permissible to conform to evidence)
- State v. Crotts, 104 Ohio St.3d 432 (Ohio 2004) (administrative/strict construction of evidentiary admissibility in certain contexts)
- State v. Gardner, 118 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (unanimity concerns in multi-act cases discussed; informs duplicity discourse)