State v. Chesrown, 2012 Ohio 2476

Background

In March 2010, police investigated sexual abuse allegations involving 13-year-old M.G. at Tallmadge Middle School; Chesrown previously housed M.G. and her siblings.
M.G. testified about recorded showers on Chesrown’s cell phone, which she deleted and threw the phone after discovery.
M.G. testified Chesrown touched her private parts on a prior occasion, prompting investigation by police and a Children’s Services caseworker.
Officers, along with a caseworker, waited at Chesrown’s home after contacting an adult tenant who arranged Chesrown’s return; no search occurred initially.
Chesrown arrived, provided verbal and written consent to search, unlocked areas, and accompanied police to the station for questioning.
Chesrown was indicted on five counts (gross sexual imposition and two or more counts under RC 2907.323 for illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material).
Chesrown moved to suppress all evidence from the home search, arguing lack of voluntary consent; the trial court denied the motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Chesrown’s search valid under the Fourth Amendment?	Chesrown contends consent was involuntary due to police presence.	Chesrown argues the search violated Fourth Amendment rights.	No; consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances.
Was the admission of expert and related testimony plain error?	Admission of expert/related testimony affected victim credibility.	Errors either not preserved or not resulting in plain error.	No plain error; any errors were not reversible given substantial other evidence.
Was the trial counsel ineffective by failing to object to certain evidence?	Counsel failed to object to inadmissible or prejudicial evidence.	Counsel’s performance was reasonable under the circumstances.	No; no ineffective assistance established.
Were other acts/character evidence properly admitted to show a common plan or scheme?	Other-act testimony showed Chesrown’s modus operandi.	Evidence was improper other acts to prove identity/plan.	Partially admissible; some evidence was improper but harmless.
Did cumulative errors deny Chesrown due due process?	Multiple errors accumulated to deny fair trial.	Cumulative error not shown; not reversible.	No due process violation due to cumulative error.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (fact-finder credibility favored at suppression stage)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (standard for reviewing suppression findings)
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (1997) (independent legal standard after factual findings)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (preliminary framework for voluntariness of consent)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent depends on totality of circumstances)
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) (voluntariness inquiry includes knowing right to refuse)
Boston v. State, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (1989) (expert testimony on credibility of child witnesses limited)
Hartman v. State, 93 Ohio St.3d 274 (2001) (establishing foundation for expert testimony based on experience)
State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66 (1975) (conditions for admissibility of other-acts evidence (modus operandi))
State v. Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182 (1990) (modi operandi admissibility and identity considerations)
State v. Lowe, 69 Ohio St.3d 527 (1994) (admissibility of other-acts to prove identity via modus operandi)
State v. Guenther, 9th Dist. No. 05CA008663 (2006) (other acts evidence in sexual offense cases)
State v. Travis, 9th Dist. No. 06CA0075-M (2007) (common plan or scheme theory for other acts)
State v. Ristich, 9th Dist. No. 21701 (2004) (application of other acts rules)
State v. Williams, 195 Ohio App.3d 807 (2011) (discussion on admissibility and harmless error)
Hill v. Wadsworth-Rittman Area Hosp., 185 Ohio App.3d 788 (2009) (standards for determining plain error)