State v. Brown, 2021 Ohio 1674

Christopher Brown (appellant) was indicted on multiple counts: four first-degree rape counts (some alleging victim under 13), two additional first-degree rape counts (alleging force), and one second-degree charge of corrupting another with drugs; victim A.K. is his stepdaughter.
Allegations spanned Oct. 1, 2013–Jan. 16, 2016 (under‑13 counts) and Jan. 17–Dec. 31, 2016 (post‑13 counts); specific acts alleged include insertion of an inhaler/vibrator and intercourse.
Three‑day jury trial in Feb. 2020; A.K., mother S.B., and an expert on child abuse testified for the State; Brown testified and presented witnesses for the defense.
During deliberations jurors performed unauthorized internet research on the term "access" (Count 7, corrupting another with drugs); Brown declined a mistrial (against counsel’s advice) and accepted the State’s dismissal of that count.
Jury convicted Brown on four rape counts (two under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) — victim under 13; two under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) — force/coercion); the court sentenced Brown to consecutive terms totaling 40 years to life.
Brown appealed asserting: (1) trial court abused discretion by not ordering a mistrial for juror misconduct; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) insufficient evidence; and (4) convictions against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror misconduct / mistrial for juror internet research	State argued dismissal of Count 7 remedied any taint and no mistrial required.	Brown argued jury’s outside research tainted deliberations and warranted mistrial.	Court held Brown invited any error by refusing mistrial and accepting dismissal of Count 7; no reversible error.
Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to request limiting instruction after Brown’s comment about being in jail)	State: counsel’s tactical choice to avoid repeating the remark was reasonable.	Brown: counsel ineffective for not requesting limiting instruction; prejudiced outcome.	Court held counsel’s choice was reasonable trial strategy and Brown failed to show prejudice; claim denied.
Sufficiency of the evidence for rape convictions	State: A.K.’s testimony alone, if believed, established elements (insertion/object and intercourse; victim’s age and psychological coercion).	Brown: delayed disclosure and inconsistent timelines made evidence insufficient.	Court held evidence, viewed favorably to prosecution, was sufficient to support convictions.
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: credibility was for jury; evidence supports verdict.	Brown: verdict against manifest weight due to delayed disclosure, family testimony contradicting allegations.	Court held this was a credibility battle; jury did not lose its way and convictions are not against the manifest weight.

State v. Daniels, 92 Ohio App.3d 473 (1st Dist. 1993) (trial court review of juror misconduct evaluated for abuse of discretion)
Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907) (verdict must be based on evidence in court, not outside influence)
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (jury verdict must be free from outside influence)
State ex rel. Bitter v. Missig, 72 Ohio St.3d 249 (1995) (invited‑error doctrine bars a party from complaining of an error it induced)
State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (1997) (review standard for juror misconduct determinations)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio formulation of Strickland standard)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 (1988) (force element in rape may be psychological/parental coercion; relaxed standard where victim is of tender years)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest‑weight review)