State v. Consiglio, 2022 Ohio 2340

Background

In January 2021, Anthony Consiglio unexpectedly visited his 79-year-old grandmother, sexually assaulted and raped her, forced oral sex, took $51 and her cell and home phones, and warned her not to tell anyone.
Neighbors and the victim’s daughter were contacted; Consiglio was arrested at his mother’s home with the victim’s phones and money; an altercation occurred at the police station leading to additional charges (some later dismissed).
A Mahoning County grand jury indicted Consiglio on multiple counts including rape, attempted rape, aggravated robbery, robbery, theft from a protected person, domestic violence, assault, and obstructing official business.
Consiglio pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and obtained two court-ordered psychiatric evaluations; both experts testified at the bench trial (state’s Dr. Hart and defense’s Dr. Devies). The trial court found Dr. Devies not credible and rejected the insanity defense.
The court convicted Consiglio on seven counts (one count of obstruction dismissed), merged several convictions for sentencing, and imposed an aggregate indeterminate prison term of 19½ to 25 years (with credit for time served).
On appeal Consiglio argued (1) his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence because he proved insanity by a preponderance, and (2) his consecutive sentence was imposed contrary to law because the court failed to properly consider his mental illness as mitigating.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Consiglio)	Held
Whether Consiglio proved not guilty by reason of insanity by a preponderance	State argued evidence (victim’s testimony, Consiglio’s conduct and statements, and Dr. Hart’s evaluation) showed he knew wrongfulness; defense expert was not credible	Consiglio argued his mental illness (schizophrenia, untreated) and expert testimony established he lacked capacity to know wrongfulness at the time	Court held defendant failed to meet burden; trial court reasonably credited state’s evidence and found defense expert not credible
Whether defendant’s statements, taking phones, and furtive behavior show knowledge of wrongfulness	State: acts (looking out window, telling victim to keep it secret, taking phones to prevent calls for help) show awareness his conduct was wrong	Defense: conduct could be explained by psychosis or memory gaps; taking phones not proof of knowing wrongfulness	Held these actions were persuasive indicia of awareness and supported court’s finding against insanity defense
Whether trial court erred in crediting/discounting expert testimony	State: defense expert relied on obsolete irresistible-impulse rationale and gave inconsistent, nonprobative testimony	Defendant: defense expert’s opinions showed inability to form required mens rea due to psychosis	Held court reasonably rejected defense expert as not credible; no manifest-miscarriage of justice
Whether consecutive sentence was contrary to law or failed to weigh mental illness properly	State: court considered relevant sentencing factors and mental illness was not controlling; sentencing within statutory range	Defendant: court failed to consider mitigating evidence of mental illness and thus erred imposing consecutive terms	Held sentencing was not contrary to law; court acknowledged mental illness but reasonably sentenced because it found defendant knew right from wrong

Key Cases Cited

State v. Harris, [citation="28 N.E.3d 1256"] (Ohio 2015) (insanity affirmative defense must be proven by a preponderance)
State v. Thompkins, [citation="678 N.E.2d 541"] (Ohio 1997) (standard for weighing manifest weight of the evidence)
State v. DeHass, [citation="227 N.E.2d 212"] (Ohio 1967) (trier of fact decides witness credibility)
State v. Lang, [citation="954 N.E.2d 596"] (Ohio 2011) (appellate review of manifest-weight claims and standard for reversal)
State v. Marcum, [citation="59 N.E.3d 1231"] (Ohio 2016) (standards for appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Jones, [citation="169 N.E.3d 649"] (Ohio 2020) (clarified limits on appellate reweighing of sentencing determinations)
State v. Bonnell, [citation="16 N.E.3d 659"] (Ohio 2014) (requirements for consecutive-sentence findings)