State v. Cox
2013 Ohio 4941
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Victim C.F. (testified at trial; aged 18 at trial) alleged multiple sexual assaults by stepfather Vernon Lee Cox occurring from ages ~6 to 14 at two residences; allegations included digital, oral, and penile penetration and other sexual acts.
- Incidents alleged: early-morning oral/digital assault in Orchard Hill bedroom; sexual assault on her 9th birthday at Rosebury (digital and penile attempts); assault in Rosebury bedroom with stepsister present (digital, penile, cunnilingus); kitchen incident involving forced oral sex while blindfolded; dirt-bike incident with digital penetration.
- Disclosure timeline: C.F. told a high-school intervention specialist in May 2010; investigation followed; two indictments (A and B) charging multiple counts of rape (including rape of a child under 13 and rape by force/threat), gross sexual imposition, and sexual battery.
- Jury convicted Cox on all tried counts; after some counts were merged the trial court imposed an aggregate 30-year prison sentence. Cox appeals.
- On appeal Cox raised sufficiency/manifest-weight challenges to force and penetration elements, evidentiary challenges to expert testimony, ineffective-assistance, impeachment using grand-jury testimony, exclusion/limitation of herpes evidence, lost notes, juror incidents, and cumulative error. Court affirmed convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cox) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/manifest weight re: "force or threat of force" for rape-by-force counts | Victim’s testimony plus parental/disciplinarian authority established that C.F. was compelled; force can be subtle/psychological in parent-child context | State relied on generalized statements/non-sexual incidents; insufficient proof of force | Affirmed: reasonable jury could find force; conviction not against manifest weight (Eskridge principle applies) |
| Sufficiency/manifest weight re: penile penetration (vaginal intercourse element) | Victim’s testimony that penis made contact and was inserted "a little bit" satisfied slight penetration requirement | Victim was uncertain/confused about whether penetration occurred; evidence insufficient under Lucas standard | Affirmed: testimony that penis entered "a little bit" suffices for slight penetration; not against manifest weight |
| Admissibility of expert testimony on child-sexual-abuse behavior (Dr. Miceli) | Expert testimony on delayed/partial reporting and modus operandi aids jury understanding and is admissible under Evid. R. 702 | Expert lacked case-specific data; testimony impermissibly bolstered victim | Affirmed: testimony admissible, limited to behavioral characteristics; did not opine on victim’s truthfulness |
| Ineffective assistance claim for not objecting to expert testimony | N/A | Counsel ineffective for failing to object to Miceli testimony under Evid. R. 703/705 | Affirmed: counsel not ineffective; pretrial motion filed; expert testimony admissible so objection would be futile; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Eskridge v. State, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 (recognizes coercion inherent in parental authority; force can be subtle/psychological)
- McKnight v. State, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (differentiates sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- DeHass v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (deference to factfinder on witness credibility)
- Stowers v. State, 81 Ohio St.3d 260 (expert testimony on behavioral characteristics of sexually abused children admissible but experts may not opine on witness truthfulness)
- Boston v. State, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (expert may not give direct opinion on witness veracity)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (adoption of Strickland standard in Ohio)