State v. Boehme
2017 Ohio 8246
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In May 2015 Jonathan C. Boehme was indicted for three counts of rape of a child under 13, one count of attempted rape, and one count of gross sexual imposition based on abuse allegations by "Jane," who first reported abuse in March 2015.
- Jane testified to multiple incidents beginning when she was 11–12: digital penetration on several occasions, forced oral sex, and later rubbing of defendant’s penis on her upper thighs until ejaculation.
- After Jane reported the abuse, police submitted her bedding to the crime lab; five semen stains were found and DNA testing linked three stains to Boehme and one stain consistent with his profile.
- The trial court acquitted Boehme of attempted rape; a jury convicted him of three counts of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition. He received concurrent 10-years-to-life sentences for the rapes and a consecutive 18-month term for gross sexual imposition.
- Boehme appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) denial of a Daubert hearing regarding expert testimony (Dr. Miceli), (2) manifest weight challenge to the convictions, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for not moving to sever the gross-sexual-imposition count from the rape counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying defendant’s request for a Daubert hearing for proffered child‑psychologist testimony | State: expert (Dr. Miceli) was qualified and her clinical opinions were admissible; no Daubert hearing required | Boehme: needed a hearing to test the scientific bases of Dr. Miceli’s opinions and whether research cited is reliable | Court: Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; defendant offered only speculation and had means (cross‑exam, own expert) to challenge the studies at trial. |
| Whether convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence | State: victim testimony corroborated by DNA/semen evidence and other investigation; credibility for jury to decide | Boehme: inconsistencies between CARE House interview and trial testimony and alleged improper use of semen evidence | Court: Affirmed — discrepancies were explored at trial and not sufficiently contradictory; semen stains corroborative and no record evidence jury misused them. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to sever gross-sexual-imposition count (semen evidence) from rape counts | State: offenses arose from same course of conduct, evidence for each offense was simple and direct, joinder proper | Boehme: semen-stain evidence relevant only to GSI and prejudicial to rape charges; severance should have been sought | Court: Affirmed — counsel’s choice reasonable (no prejudice); even without semen evidence rapes were supported by uncontradicted testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial court’s discretion to determine admissibility of expert testimony)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test: performance and prejudice)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest-weight standard review)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)
- State v. Coleman, 85 Ohio St.3d 129 (joinder favored where offenses arise from same act or transaction)
- State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio St.3d 231 (defendant bears burden to prove prejudice from joinder)
- State v. Heisey, 48 N.E.3d 157 (2d Dist.) (upholding denial of Daubert hearing for Dr. Miceli’s testimony)