State v. Denson, 2023 Ohio 847

Denson was indicted for one count of gross sexual imposition involving a child under 13; he pleaded not guilty and was tried by a jury.
During voir dire the prosecutor warned the case would rely primarily on a child’s testimony; several jurors were excused for cause as unwilling to convict on testimony alone.
Juror 22 (African American) said he could convict on testimony but found it difficult to choose between a person of color and “calling a young child a liar.” The state used a peremptory challenge against him; the trial court overruled Denson’s Batson challenge.
The state also peremptorily struck Juror 16 (white female) who expressed hesitancy about convicting based solely on a child’s testimony; other white jurors had been excused for similar reasons.
At trial the great-aunt and the child’s mother were asked whether the child lies, and a detective testified that the child’s consistent disclosures and ability to demonstrate the abuse "lead to her credibility as a child." Denson did not object at trial.
The jury convicted Denson; the court sentenced him to five years. On appeal he raised (1) a Batson equal-protection claim and (2) a due-process/plain-error claim that witnesses impermissibly bolstered the child’s veracity.

Issue	State's Argument	Denson's Argument	Held
Whether the peremptory strike of Juror 22 violated Equal Protection (Batson)	Strike was race-neutral: juror expressed hesitancy to convict on testimonial evidence alone, matching reasons used to exclude other jurors.	Strike was pretextual and discriminatory because juror referenced shared race with defendant and was one of two Black potential jurors.	No Batson violation; court deferred to trial judge’s credibility finding and found state’s reason plausible.
Whether testimony from great-aunt, mother, and detective improperly bolstered the child’s credibility (due process/plain error)	Testimony did not directly opine that allegations were true; comments were indirect and descriptive (consistency, demonstration).	Testimony improperly vouched for the child’s veracity and affected Denson’s substantial rights; plain error review applies.	No reversible error: statements were indirect (not direct opinions on truth) and, even if improper, did not affect outcome.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race-based peremptory challenges)
Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (2019) (single discriminatory strike violates Equal Protection)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (trial-court assessment of prosecutor’s stated reasons must consider plausibility in light of the record)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (factors for evaluating pretext include demeanor and reasonableness of explanations)
State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (1989) (witnesses may not offer direct opinions on child-victim’s veracity; such testimony is impermissible bolstering)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain-error standard in criminal cases)