State v. Boden, 2013 Ohio 4260

David A. Boden was indicted on multiple counts of rape and sexual battery based on allegations by three women (C.E., R.C., and M.K.); Boden admitted sexual contact but claimed consent and that victims were adults.
At trial Boden was convicted of four counts of sexual battery and one count of rape, acquitted of other counts (including all charges relating to M.K.), and sentenced to 19 years imprisonment; he appealed.
C.E. (his biological daughter by DNA) alleged a single incident after heavy drinking; medical swabs and DNA linked Boden to semen on vaginal/anal swabs and underwear.
R.C. (his former stepchild / person in loco parentis) alleged prolonged sexual abuse beginning at age ten and continuing into adulthood; DNA linked Boden to semen on R.C.’s underwear and vaginal swab evidence contained male DNA.
Boden conceded sexual contact with C.E. and R.C. but disputed lack of consent for C.E. (arguing consent and that she was adult) and disputed timing/parental status for R.C.; he also argued trial errors (mistrial for prosecutor remark and request to sever counts).
The trial court denied mistrial and severance motions; the appellate court affirmed convictions and sentence.

Issue	State's Argument	Boden's Argument	Held
1. Were convictions against manifest weight of the evidence?	Evidence (victim testimony, eyewitness, DNA, paternity results, intoxication signs) supports convictions for rape (2907.02(A)(1)(c)) and sexual battery (2907.03(A)(5)).	Convictions were against manifest weight; volunt. intoxication not intended impairment; witness credibility disputed.	Appellate court: No. Evidence supported findings as to paternity, intoxication-based impairment, and in loco parentis; verdicts not manifestly against weight.
2. Was a mistrial required after prosecutor’s comment implying Boden should have produced text messages?	Comment attacked credibility; curative instruction sufficed; objection sustained.	Comment improperly shifted burden and prejudiced defendant; mistrial required.	Court: Denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion—objection sustained and court gave a strong curative instruction; presumed juror compliance.
3. Was joinder/severance error (Crim.R. 14)?	Joinder permissible; offenses were simple and distinct and any potential prejudice did not rise to plain error.	Joinder prejudiced defense because evidence of other victims would be inadmissible and overlapping testimony made separation impossible.	Court: Denial of severance not plain error. Evidence involved different victims, distinct facts (single intoxicated event v. years of in loco parentis abuse); no miscarriage of justice.

State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (standard for reviewing manifest-weight claims)
State v. Hatten, 186 Ohio App.3d 286 (2d Dist. 2010) (voluntary intoxication may constitute a mental or physical condition that substantially impairs ability to consent)
State v. Noggle, 67 Ohio St.3d 31 (1993) (definition and scope of person in loco parentis for R.C. 2907.03(A)(5))
State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (1992) (standards and burden for Crim.R. 14 severance motions)
State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118 (1991) (mistrial standard and when a mistrial is required)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 (1995) (presumption that juries follow curative instructions)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain-error standard under Crim.R. 52(B))
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (notice of plain error to be taken with utmost caution)