State v. Debruce
2012 Ohio 454
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Debruce appeals convictions for two counts of rape and one count of kidnapping, with an aggregate 22-year sentence, and the court remanded regarding court costs.
- S.M. testified Debruce dragged, threatened, and coerced her into multiple sexual acts over the course of a night.
- Physical and DNA evidence linked Debruce to the crimes (bruising on S.M., DNA on shirt and hoodie).
- Corroborating testimony came from witnesses (Stafford, Muhammad, S.M.’s mother, officer) and medical/forensic findings.
- Trial court rulings addressed Crim.R.29 sufficiency, weight of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and court-cost imposition under R.C. 2947.23(A); remand for proper costs.
- Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Debruce argues S.M.’s testimony was uncorroborated. | Debruce contends insufficient evidence to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt. | Sufficiency found; evidence supports elements. |
| Weight of the evidence | Debruce claims the jury lost its way in crediting S.M.’s testimony. | Debruce argues testimony was inconsistent; weight favors acquittal. | Not against the manifest weight; evidence substantial and corroborated. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Debruce argues closing remark biased the jury. | Prosecutor’s remark improper but curative instruction given. | No prejudicial effect; remarks viewed in context with curative instruction. |
| Court costs notification under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) | Failure to notify is prejudicial error warranting remedy. | Gabriel/Gabriel-like remedy could apply; may negate future community service option. | Error to notify; remand for proper imposition of court costs per statute. |
| Effective assistance of counsel on costs issue | Failure to raise notification defect affected counsel’s effectiveness. | Issue moot after remand for costs; no decision on merits. | Moot; not addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Frashuer, 2010-Ohio-634 (9th Dist. No. 24769 (2010)) (sufficiency review; de novo standard; credibility not assessed on appeal)
- State v. Williams, 2009-Ohio-6955 (9th Dist. No. 24731 (2009)) (sufficiency standard; determine if evidence proves elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 ((1997)) (establishes standard for sufficiency of evidence and juror inference)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 ((1991)) (traumatic facts; credibility not evaluated; focus on proof of elements)
- State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 ((1995)) (curative instruction effectiveness in prosecutorial misconduct)
- Lux v. State, 2012-Ohio-112 (2nd Dist. No. 2010-CA-30 (2012)) (mandatory notification under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) must be considered on direct appeal)
- State v. Gabriel, 2010-Ohio-3151 (7th Dist. No. 09 MA 108 (2010)) (remedial considerations for court-cost notification)
- State v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 1426 ((2011)) (review of prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal)