State v. Durham, 2024 Ohio 3289

Defendant Enrique Durham was convicted after a jury trial in Tuscarawas County, Ohio, of multiple counts: rape, gross sexual imposition, and endangering children, based on acts of sexual abuse committed against his twelve-year-old stepdaughter, T.D., over the course of 2022.
The abuse was discovered when T.D.'s mother, H.C., found Durham in T.D.'s room late at night and T.D. disclosed inappropriate touching and penetration.
Following the discovery, T.D. reported ongoing sexual abuse, and an investigation ensued, including forensic interviews and psychological evaluation diagnosing T.D. with PTSD and depression due to the abuse.
Durham admitted at trial to acts supporting the gross sexual imposition and endangering children counts (rubbing lotion on T.D.'s body, including her breasts and vaginal area), but denied digital penetration.
Durham appealed his convictions and sentence, raising six main assignments of error, including evidentiary, sufficiency, merger, prosecutorial misconduct, sentencing, and cumulative error claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Submission of unadmitted expert reports to jury	No prejudice since only the redacted, admitted exhibit went to jury	Prejudicial error if unadmitted, inculpatory versions were taken into jury room	Overruled; record speculative, no prejudice demonstrated
Sufficiency of evidence for felony child endangering ("serious physical harm")	Mental health diagnosis and trauma justified finding of serious physical harm	State failed to prove "serious physical harm" requiring hospitalization or treatment	Overruled; evidence sufficient for 2nd-degree felony
Failure to merge allied offenses for sentencing	Each conviction based on separate acts or animus; merger not required	Rape, GSI, and endangering children convictions should merge as allied offenses	Sustained in part; endangering children count merges with others for resentencing
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument	Statements were fair comment/inference from evidence; no prejudice	Closing argument improperly vouched for credibility, misrepresented evidence	Overruled; even if improper, no prejudice; result would not change
Sentencing calculation error	Sentence was proper	Miscalculation claimed; affected by merger issue	Premature; remanded for resentencing on merger only
Cumulative error	Individual errors didn't prejudice trial	Cumulative harmless errors resulted in unfair trial	Overruled; no cumulative error present

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (reviewing sufficiency of the evidence under a reasonable fact-finder standard)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (three-prong test for merging allied offenses of similar import)
State v. Grant, 67 Ohio St.3d 465 (appellate presumption of regularity and requirement for prejudice on appeal for evidentiary error)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (plain error standard for reversal in criminal trials)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (remedy for merger of allied offenses is resentencing, not vacation or dismissal of guilt decision)