State v. Clark, 2014 Ohio 855

Background

In fall 2012 Donovin Clark, a student at Career Technology Center (CTC), was accused by several female classmates of repeated unwanted touching of erogenous zones (buttocks, breasts, thighs, stomach).
School officials (CTC director Schakat) investigated; Clark admitted grabbing T.H.’s buttocks and received school discipline (suspension). He later received a ten-day suspension after further meeting.
Springfield police interviewed Clark; he again admitted grabbing T.H. and other students, saying he “zones out” and sometimes “went too far.” Arrest warrants issued for six counts of sexual imposition.
At jury trial Clark was convicted of one count (T.H.) and acquitted on five others. Sentenced to 60 days (45 suspended), one year probation, mental-health assessment, and Tier I sex-offender designation; sentence stayed pending appeal.
Clark appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of the evidence, (2) exclusion of cross-examination about the detective’s statement of law, and (3) ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress his statements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict for sexual imposition (elements: sexual contact for purpose of arousal/gratification; knowledge/recklessness)	State: evidence (admission, nature of touching of an erogenous zone, victim reaction, pattern limited to females) permits inference of sexual purpose and that conduct was offensive/ reckless; corroboration exists.	Clark: touching was not for sexual arousal/gratification; no corroboration touching element; lacked knowledge it was offensive or recklessness.	Affirmed: rational juror could infer sexual purpose; corroboration satisfied; knowledge/recklessness established.
Admissibility/exclusion of cross-examining detective about his statement of law (definition of sexual imposition/sexual contact)	State: witness may testify to facts; instruction of law is court’s province; permitting the detective to read or define statute would invade court’s role and confuse jury.	Clark: detective mischaracterized elements in interview; defense should be allowed to show that to correct juror confusion.	Affirmed: trial court properly excluded statute-reading and legal-definition testimony; jury instructions are from court and no plain error shown.
Ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress inculpatory statements to detective	State: counsel’s conduct fell within reasonable strategy; even without detective statements, prior admissions to school officials and corroborating witnesses would remain; no prejudice.	Clark: statements to detective were induced by improper legal advice and would have been suppressible; counsel’s failure prejudiced defense.	Affirmed: no deficient performance or prejudice established; earlier admissions and corroboration make suppression unlikely to change outcome.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (establishes Ohio standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Economo, 76 Ohio St.3d 56 (corroboration required in sexual-imposition prosecutions may be slight and need only touch any element)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Hawn, 138 Ohio App.3d 449 (discussing sufficiency challenge standard)
State v. Astley, 36 Ohio App.3d 247 (holding R.C. sexual-contact definition contemplates touching a described area that a reasonable person would perceive as sexually stimulating)
State v. Mundy, 99 Ohio App.3d 275 (permitting trier of fact to infer sexual motivation from contact circumstances)
State v. Raglin, 83 Ohio St.3d 253 (juries are presumed to follow court’s legal instructions)
State v. Moreland, 50 Ohio St.3d 58 (plain-error standard: outcome would have been different)
State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (failure to file suppression motion not per se ineffective assistance)
State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St.3d 6 (prejudice requirement for suppression-related ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516 (attorney performance presumed reasonable; definition of deficient performance)
State v. Brown, 115 Ohio St.3d 55 (filing suppression motion can be strategic; likelihood of success relevant)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Crim. R. 52(B) plain-error caution)