State v. Farthing, 2020 Ohio 4936

Appellant Steven Farthing was indicted for rape, two counts of gross sexual imposition, and corrupting a minor; a superseding indictment limited charges to allegations involving one minor, R.M.W.
R.M.W., who was seven at trial, testified that "Uncle Steven" made her touch his genitals and put his genitals in her mouth; forensic interviews and a pediatric sexual assault examiner corroborated the disclosures.
Defense sought to admit evidence implicating two other persons (mother's boyfriend H.J. and appellant's son A.F.) as alternate perpetrators; the court excluded testimony about allegations involving H.J. (which were recanted by a different child) and limited inquiry into allegations involving A.F. for foundation reasons.
The trial court ruled the rape‑shield statute and concerns about relevance/foundation barred the proffered third‑party evidence absent proper foundation and relevancy connecting the third parties to the charged assault.
A jury convicted Farthing; the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 15 years to life. Farthing appealed, arguing improper exclusion of third‑party evidence and that the verdict was unsupported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The appellate court affirmed: it upheld the exclusion of the alternate‑perpetrator evidence and found the evidence (victim ID, interviews, examiner testimony, and expert opinion on disclosure) sufficient and not a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence of alternate perpetrators	Exclusion proper under rape‑shield rules and relevancy/foundation limits; no nexus between third parties and R.M.W.	Exclusion violated Farthing's right to present a defense; rape‑shield does not bar nonconsensual prior acts; third‑party guilt evidence admissible	Court affirmed exclusion: rape‑shield bars both consensual and nonconsensual "sexual activity"; no evidence directly linking H.J. or A.F. to R.M.W.'s allegations and foundation/relevance lacking
Sufficiency of the evidence to identify Farthing as perpetrator	Evidence (victim identification in court, videotaped interviews, examiner and interviewer testimony) was sufficient for a rational juror	Argues state failed to properly identify him and lacked physical/corroborative evidence	Affirmed: viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, evidence permitted a rational factfinder to convict
Whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Jury reasonably credited the child's consistent disclosures and expert interview review; no miscarriage of justice	Argues inconsistencies, family custody disputes, and defense testimony undermine credibility	Affirmed: appellate court found credibility and weight issues were for the jury, not grounds for reversal

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (constitutional limits on exclusion of defense third‑party guilt evidence and balancing probative value vs. prejudice)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review follows Jackson v. Virginia)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for conviction to be supported by sufficient evidence)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest‑weight standard and when a new trial is warranted)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (new trial on manifest‑weight grounds should be rare)
State v. Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182 (Ohio 1990) (credibility and weight of evidence are jury functions)
Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (trial court is best positioned to judge witness demeanor and credibility)
Smithart v. Alaska, 988 P.2d 583 (Alaska 1999) (third‑party guilt evidence must directly connect the third party to the crime to be admissible)