State v. Crist, 2016 Ohio 7750

Defendant Shonn A. Crist (father) was indicted on three counts of sexual battery and one count of rape for sexual conduct with his daughter beginning when she was 14; jury convicted on all counts.
Victim reported initial abuse in 2013, underwent medical exam showing internal injuries, then recanted under pressure from Crist but later disclosed continued abuse in 2013–2014.
Evidence included victim testimony describing grooming, gifts tied to sexual acts, phone recordings, and Crist’s statements to police admitting sexual conduct while blaming the victim.
Trial court gave a special jury instruction defining “force” when the defendant is a parent/authority figure (psychological/emotional compulsion sufficient); defense did not object at trial.
Crist appealed raising two errors: (1) the court should have instructed that “force” requires physical violence/constraint; (2) the court’s inference instruction improperly permitted stacking of inferences and could penalize his failure to testify.
Court of Appeals reviewed under plain-error standard (defense forfeited objections) and affirmed convictions, finding instructions legally correct or harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury instruction on “force” for R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) must require physical force	State: parental-authority instruction (including nonphysical compulsion) correctly reflects law for minors	Crist: definition should have required physical violence/physical compulsion; psychological pressure insufficient	Court: affirmed parental-authority instruction; nonphysical psychological/emotional compulsion can establish force for a minor; no plain error
Whether inference instruction permitted impermissible stacking of inferences or invited use of defendant’s silence	State: instruction on inferences and separate instruction that defendant’s silence must not be considered adequately protected defendant	Crist: instruction allowed jury to infer guilt from circumstances and his failure to testify	Court: instruction proper; juries presumed to follow instructions; no evidence state commented on prearrest silence; any error harmless

State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1988) (parental authority can obviate need for overt physical force when child’s will is overcome)
State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio 1992) (threat of force can be inferred from circumstances; adult-victim context distinguished from child-victim cases)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless-error rule applies to most jury-instruction errors)
State v. Leach, 102 Ohio St.3d 135 (Ohio 2004) (use of a defendant’s prearrest silence as substantive evidence violates Fifth Amendment)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (circumstantial and direct evidence equally probative; circumstantial evidence may support conviction)
Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)