State v. Chasteen, 2024 Ohio 909

Brent Chasteen, a licensed massage therapist, was charged with two counts of sexual imposition involving separate incidents with two different victims at his workplace in Cincinnati.
During the massage sessions, both victims alleged that Chasteen touched them inappropriately and made sexually suggestive remarks, including offers of a "sexual release" and a "happy ending."
The state joined both charges into a single trial over Chasteen's objection, arguing the offenses were similar and the evidence was straightforward.
At trial, Chasteen was convicted by the jury on one count (against M.V.) and acquitted on the other (against E.B.).
On appeal, Chasteen argued the trial court erred in omitting a jury instruction on "purposely," claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting this instruction, and objected to the joinder of the two charges for trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Omission of "purposely" jury instruction	Instructions were adequate; purpose was explained in closing and defense arguments	Jury should have had a specific definition of the mens rea element	No plain error; instructions as a whole sufficed
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel's performance was reasonable; no prejudice	Failure to object/request instruction undermined case	Counsel's performance not ineffective; no prejudice
Joinder of two separate charges for trial	Evidence was simple and distinct for each count	Charges should be tried separately (different victims/incidents)	No abuse of discretion; joinder was proper

State v. Wamsley, 117 Ohio St.3d 388 (failure to instruct on all elements is not necessarily plain error; review instructions as a whole)
State v. Dunlap, 129 Ohio St.3d 461 (mens rea of purpose applies to the sexual-contact element of sexual imposition)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)