State v. Buzanowksi, 2014 Ohio 1947

Buzanowski was indicted on multiple counts including rape, sexual battery, gross sexual imposition, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and related offenses in 2010.
At the first trial, the jury acquitted on sexual battery and kidnapping, but convicted on one count of contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a minor; several charges remained hung.
During retrial, the court dismissed the rape count based on double jeopardy grounds, and the second jury convicted on gross sexual imposition and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.
Facts at trial showed H.K., 15 at the time, and two friends aged 15 and 17 were at Buzanowski’s home; vodka was served; H.K. became intoxicated and alleged sexual contact and intercourse with Buzanowski.
DNA evidence linked semen to Buzanowski on the anal swab and underwear; multiple witnesses described H.K.’s appearance as intoxicated or older than her age.
The court later reversed in part, reversed in part, and remanded on several issues, including the recklessness element and collateral estoppel concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly instructed on recklessness	Buzanowski argues the instruction omitted recklessness as an element.	Buzanowski contends the mental state should have been charged to convict under 2919.24(A)(1).	Plain error; instruction on recklessness required
Sufficiency of evidence for gross sexual imposition	Evidence showed touching and penetration with substantial impairment plus knowledge.	Insufficient evidence that HK was substantially impaired or that Buzanowski knew/should have known.	Sufficient evidence supporting conviction
Collateral estoppel/double jeopardy bar on retrial for gross sexual imposition	Hung counts do not preclude retry; failure to convict on sexual battery forecloses retry on GSI.	First-trial acquittal on sexual battery precludes retry for GSI under collateral estoppel.	Collateral estoppel bars retrial; GSI conviction reversed
Admissibility of SANE nurse narrative as hearsay	Narrative was admissible under medical treatment exception	Narrative constitutes hearsay not falling within 803(4)	Harmless error; no reversal required
Manifest weight of evidence for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor	Record supported guilt beyond reasonable doubt	Record shows inconsistency and age-related questions undermine guilt	Unlawful sexual conduct conviction affirmed; weight not wholly disturbed

State v. Moody, 104 Ohio St.3d 244 (2004) (reckless mental state applies to 2919.24)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (standard for plain error review and element instructions)
State v. Burns, 2011-Ohio-4230 (2011) (Crim.R.52 plain-error doctrine; substantial rights)
State v. Cooperrider, 4 Ohio St.3d 226 (1983) (plain error and review of instructional errors)
State v. Lovejoy, 79 Ohio St.3d 440 (1997) (hung counts and collateral estoppel context)
Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009) (convergence of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel on hung counts)
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (collateral estoppel concept in criminal trials)
State v. Rivera, 2012-Ohio-2060 (2012) (substantial impairment standard for gross sexual imposition)
State v. Zeh, 31 Ohio St.3d 99 (1987) (substantial impairment defined in context)
State v. Freeman, 2011-Ohio-2663 (2011) (intoxication and impairment limits in GSI context)
State v. Theodus, 2012-Ohio-2064 (2012) (impairment and jury considerations in impairment cases)
State v. Porter, 2008-Ohio-5265 (2008) (evidentiary considerations in expert narratives)