State v. Brown, 2019 Ohio 2599

Victim D.B., Brown’s daughter, lived apart from him for years but reconnected as a teen; Brown began repeatedly proposing “sex lessons” (oral and vaginal sex) and said he would show her, always when alone with her.
When D.B. moved in with Brown at age 17, he continued to press the sex-lesson idea; after she spent a night elsewhere without calling, Brown grounded her and said the grounding would continue until she complied with the lessons.
D.B. secretly recorded several conversations in which Brown reiterated the plan to give her sex lessons; she gave the recordings to police.
A grand jury indicted Brown for attempted sexual battery (Count 1), attempted child endangering (Count 2), and domestic violence; a jury convicted on the two attempt counts but acquitted on domestic violence; the court merged the attempts and sentenced Brown on attempted sexual battery.
On appeal the Ninth District reversed the attempt convictions for insufficient evidence, holding the State failed to prove Brown took a "substantial step" toward committing sexual battery or child endangering; remaining claims were rendered moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported attempted sexual battery	Recordings and grounding show intent and were sufficient substantial steps toward sexual battery	Brown: only words and grounding; no sexual touching or other overt acts; mere preparation insufficient	Reversed — insufficient evidence; no substantial step established
Whether evidence supported attempted child endangering (torture/cruel abuse)	Mental torment, repeated demands, and punishment (grounding) sufficiently show reckless attempt to cruelly abuse	Brown: verbal conduct alone and grounding do not reach severe mental suffering or constitute substantial step	Reversed — insufficient evidence; suffering not shown to be severe and no substantial step proved
Whether attempted sexual battery predicated on R.C. 2907.03(A)(5) is cognizable	State argued attempt was cognizable as charged	Brown argued attempt of that specific statutory sexual offense not cognizable (raised on appeal)	Not addressed on merits — moot after reversal of sufficiency claims
Trial procedure and instruction challenges (attempt instruction, prosecutor’s reasonable-doubt comment, manifest-weight)	State favored court rulings and instructions as given	Brown challenged jury instruction refusal, prosecutor’s comment, and manifest-weight of verdicts	Moot — majority declined to reach due to reversal on sufficiency; concurrence would have upheld attempted child endangering

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (establishes de novo review standard for sufficiency and distinction from manifest-weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (defines constitutional sufficiency standard: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Mole, 149 Ohio St.3d 215 (R.C. 2907.03(A)(5) imposes strict liability in parent-child sexual conduct context)
State v. Woods, 48 Ohio St.2d 127 (definition of criminal attempt requires substantial step strongly corroborative of intent)
State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248 (substantial-step test requires conduct strongly corroborative of criminal purpose)
State v. Heinish, 50 Ohio St.3d 231 (reversal appropriate where evidence fails to show substantial step toward offense)
State v. Powell, 49 Ohio St.3d 255 (examples where overt acts beyond words are required to show attempt)
State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107 (precedent distinguishing preparation from attempt)
State v. Dapice, 57 Ohio App.3d 99 (intent alone and mere preparation insufficient for attempt)