State v. Brumbach, 2011 Ohio 6635

Brumbach was indicted on December 31, 2009, for rape of his adopted daughter, who disclosed long-term abuse beginning at age seven.
The abuse was uncovered through counseling and a recorded detective-intercepted telephone conversation.
The jury convicted Brumbach on three counts of rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and two counts under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2); aggregate sentence was 50 years to life.
The victim testified, and a videotaped deposition was played at trial because she was unavailable to testify in person.
Brumbach challenged the convictions on multiple grounds, including speedy-trial rights, sufficiency/weight of evidence, admissibility of deposition, suppression of a recording, and sex-offender classification under S.B. 10, which the court later partially reversed.
On appeal, the First District held SB 10 cannot be applied to Brumbach’s offenses and remanded for resentencing under the law in effect at the time of the offenses; other aspects of the judgment were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial compliance	Brumbach argues the speedy-trial clock was miscalculated.	Brumbach contends additional days should have tolled the clock.	Trial within 90 days; assignment overruled.
Sufficiency/weight of evidence	Evidence supported all elements of rape beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence was insufficient/weight of evidence improper.	Evidence sufficient; no manifest miscarriage of justice; assignments overruled.
Videotaped deposition admissibility	Testimony via deposition was proper under Crim.R. 15.	deposition should be excluded orAlternatives required under R.C. 2939.27.	Deposition properly admitted; assignment overruled.
Motions to suppress telephone recording	Recording obtained with valid consent under Elec. Surveillance statute.	Consent validity disputed due to form issues.	No error; motion to suppress overruled.
Sex-offender classification under S.B. 10	SB 10 designation appropriate for Tier III status.	SB 10 unconstitutional; classification improper.	SB 10 designation reversed; remanded for resentencing under pre-S.B. 10 law.

State v. Gorrasi, 2010-Ohio-2875 (1st Dist., 2010) (sufficiency and weight standard aligned with appellate review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13 (1984) (prosecutorial misconduct requiring prejudice showing)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (describes abuse-of-discretion review in sentencing)
State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011) (SB 10 and Megan’s Law classification considerations)