State v. Coleman
2018 Ohio 1681
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Coleman was indicted on three counts of gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)) for allegedly touching the breasts/upper body of S.E., his girlfriend’s daughter, while S.E. was under 13.
- Trial took place Sept. 26–27, 2017; jury convicted Coleman on one count, deadlocked on the other two (which were later dismissed).
- Victim S.E. (born 2004) testified that Coleman repeatedly entered her bed in the mornings and touched her over clothing on the upper body/breast area and told her not to tell. She described incidents occurring while she was under 13.
- Corroborating witnesses: school counselor (observed crying and reported disclosure), forensic interviewer (videotaped interview showing emotional responses), and therapist (testified S.E. disclosed abuse and that self-harm was consistent with sexual abuse).
- Coleman denied the allegations, argued inconsistencies in S.E.’s testimony and her mental-health history, and moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29 (denied). The trial court sentenced Coleman to five years community control and Tier II registration; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Was there enough evidence to prove gross sexual imposition (sexual contact with person <13)? | State: Victim’s testimony, diagram marking upper body, admonition not to tell, and timing showed sexual contact with a child under 13. | Coleman: Victim’s testimony was vague, inconsistent, and uncorroborated; her mental-health history undermines reliability. | Yes. Viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find all elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Manifest weight: Did the evidence weigh against the conviction such that the jury clearly lost its way? | State: Witnesses (forensic interviewer, counselor, therapist) and victim testimony supported the verdict; jury is best judge of credibility. | Coleman: Inconsistencies, delayed disclosure, and emotional/medical history make the conviction against manifest weight. | No. The appellate court found this not an exceptional case; credibility decisions were for the jury and the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. |
| Corroboration: Is corroborating evidence required for gross sexual imposition? | State: Victim testimony alone may suffice for R.C. 2907.05(A)(4). | Coleman: Argued a corroboration requirement should apply because of statutes requiring corroboration for other sex offenses. | No corroboration required for gross sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.05; sufficiency focuses on adequacy of evidence, not corroboration. |
| Age element: Was there sufficient proof victim was under 13 when contact occurred? | State: Testimony established birth year and timing of alleged incidents while victim lived in locations during ages <13. | Coleman: Challenged specificity of dates. | Yes. Enough circumstantial testimony tied the acts to a period when victim was under 13. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the trier of fact)
- State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 2011) (appellate courts should reverse for manifest weight only in exceptional cases where evidence heavily weighs against conviction)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (the finder of fact may believe all, some, or none of witness testimony)