State v. Doogs
2017 Ohio 6914
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ronald J. Doogs, a relative who lived intermittently with the victim’s family, was convicted after a jury trial of one count of rape (first-degree felony) and one count of gross sexual imposition (fourth-degree felony) for sexual acts against L.M., a minor; three other counts were merged into Count 1 at sentencing.
- Victim L.M. (17 at trial) testified to a course of grooming: provision of alcohol and drugs beginning in early adolescence, exposure to pornography, multiple incidents where she was caused to perform manual sexual acts, and one incident in which she blacked out after drinking and later felt physical pain consistent with intercourse.
- Third parties (L.B., P.S., and B.C. through P.S.’s testimony) corroborated key events: L.B. observed L.M. apparently unconscious with appellant’s hand inside her shirt and later saw appellant naked with an apparent erection; P.S. described caring for an intoxicated L.M.; B.C. (deceased) told P.S. that appellant had admitted having sex with L.M. and appeared distraught.
- The trial court admitted B.C.’s statements to P.S. under the excited-utterance hearsay exception; the defense argued Confrontation Clause and reliability problems.
- Defendant challenged sufficiency/manifest weight of the evidence, venue for certain acts, trial counsel’s effectiveness, and the denial of his postconviction petition; the trial court sentenced him to 11 years (rape) plus 18 months (GSI) consecutive (total 12.5 years) and ordered payment of prosecution costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Doogs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of B.C.’s out-of-court statements to P.S. (Confrontation Clause) | Statements were non-testimonial and admissible (excited utterance) to show appellant’s admission and B.C.’s reaction. | Statements were testimonial hearsay and violated the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. | Court held statements were non-testimonial; admissible under Evid.R. 803(2) as excited utterance; no Confrontation Clause violation. |
| Sufficiency of evidence / Crim.R. 29 re: rape (penetration) | Evidence (L.B.’s observation of appellant naked between L.M.’s legs, L.M.’s report of feeling "opened" and abdominal pain, and B.C.’s statement) supports penetration element. | No proof of penetration; inconsistencies undermine sufficiency. | Denial of Crim.R. 29 upheld; viewed in prosecution’s favor, evidence permitted a rational trier of fact to find penetration beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Venue for gross sexual imposition (hand jobs) | Acts formed part of a continuous course of criminal conduct involving same victim and relationship, so Wood County venue proper because at least one offense occurred there. | Hand jobs occurred outside Wood County; venue not established for those counts. | Court held R.C. 2901.12(H) permits trial where any related offense occurred; venue in Wood County was proper. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel / postconviction petition | Trial counsel’s alleged failures (unpreparedness, missed witnesses, missed objections) did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome; many proffered witnesses’ testimony would be cumulative or inadmissible. | Counsel admitted unpreparedness; this warranted relief and an evidentiary hearing; affidavits show prejudice. | Court applied Strickland; found no prejudice established and trial outcome likely unchanged; denial of petition without hearing was not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (non-testimonial requirement for Confrontation Clause analysis)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (use of hearsay rules and primary-purpose testimonial test)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong standard)
- State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 (test for excited utterance under Ohio law)