State v. Branch
2013 Ohio 3192
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- State of Ohio charged Branch with three counts of rape and five counts of gross sexual imposition based on abuse of SB, his eight-year-old daughter, in 2010–2011.
- SB competency to testify was contested and the trial court conducted voir dire and a competency hearing in 2012.
- Branch moved to suppress statements from two police interrogations; suppression hearing occurred January 2012 and a subsequent hearing occurred in June 2012.
- Trial included disclosure of Allen County Children Services Board records, which the court allowed in part after in camera review.
- Jury found Branch guilty on all counts October 5, 2012 and he was sentenced to 70 years to life; Branch appeals claiming multiple errors including suppression, competency, discovery, witness accommodation, sufficiency, weight, and ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Branch properly invoked the right to counsel and whether statements were admissible. | Branch argues Miranda rights were invoked and interrogation should have ceased. | Probable invocation occurred; officers continued questioning without re-Mirandizing. | No unambiguous invocation; statements properly admitted. |
| Whether SB was competent to testify at trial. | SB competently testified given her ability to recall facts and distinguish truth from lies. | SB’s responses show lack of competency. | SB found competent to testify. |
| Whether Branch had a right to access Child Services Board records. | Discovery of records could yield exculpatory material. | Records confidential; not relevant or exculpatory. | In camera review denied access; records not material to guilt/punishment. |
| Whether allowing Pastor Vonderau to sit next to SB during testimony was improper. | Accommodations are permissible to protect child witnesses. | Presence of non-interested adult could affect testimony. | Permitted under Evid.R. 611 to reduce trauma to SB. |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support Branch’s convictions. | SB’s testimony plus Branch’s own statements establish elements. | Lack of corroborating physical/eyewitness evidence undermines conviction. | Sufficient evidence supported all convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (mixed questions of law and fact in suppression; credibility given to trial court)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (ambiguous invocations do not require cessation of questioning)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (unambiguous request for counsel required; interrogation stops)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1987) (in camera inspection of child abuse records for due process)
- State v. Hatten, 186 Ohio App.3d 286 (2010) (competency of child witnesses; factors for determination)