2021 Ohio 2548
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Victim (E.L.) alleged repeated sexual assaults by her uncle, Robert Lee Fast, in summers of 1990–1991 when she was 9–10; she did not report them until adulthood.
- Grand jury indicted Fast (April 2018) on multiple rape counts; counts 1–4 alleged offenses in 1990–1991 (the counts at issue here). Counts 5–8 were later dismissed or resulted in not-guilty verdicts on retrial.
- First jury trial produced guilty verdicts on some counts but a hung jury on counts 1–4; state moved to amend counts 1–4 (to reflect they were aggravated first-degree felonies) and retried those counts.
- Pretrial motions included Fast’s motion to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds and the state’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the victim’s drug/alcohol use unrelated in time/place to charged offenses.
- At retrial the jury convicted Fast on counts 1–4; trial court sentenced him to consecutive 10–25-year terms on each count (aggregate 40–100 years).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of limitations barred prosecution for 1990–1991 rapes | Tolling under R.C. 2901.13(F)/Hensley applied until victim turned 18; 1999 amendment extended limitations to 20 years and applied here | Prosecution barred by six-year limitations in effect when offenses occurred | Court: Tolling continued until victim’s 18th birthday; 1999 amendment to 20 years applied retroactively because limitations had not expired; indictment timely (denied dismissal). |
| Whether granting state's motion in limine (excluding evidence of victim’s later drug use/addiction) violated confrontation rules | Excluding remote drug-use evidence was proper because it was irrelevant or unduly prejudicial if unrelated in time/place to charged acts | Exclusion improperly limited cross-examination on credibility and memory (Evid.R. 616(B), 402) | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence of later drug use had minimal probative value on 1990–1991 perception/memory and risked unfair prejudice; no improper restriction for drug use contemporaneous with charged acts. |
| Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence (esp. Count 4 date discrepancy) | State: Victim’s testimony and supporting witness evidence were sufficient; discrepancies went to weight, not sufficiency | Fast: Victim’s statements were inconsistent (e.g., written statement said 1992), undermining sufficiency and credibility | Court: Evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Count 4 occurred in 1991; inconsistencies affected weight, not legal sufficiency; verdicts not against manifest weight. |
| Whether amending indictment before retrial (to correct degree/label) violated double jeopardy or rendered sentence unlawful | Amendment corrected clerical/labeling error and did not change name/identity of the crime; retrial permissible because prior jury had hung | Amendment altered degree/penalty/identity and retrial/amendment violated double jeopardy / sentencing law | Court: Amendment permitted under Crim.R. 7(D) because it did not change the offense identity (was a clerical correction); jeopardy had not attached on counts 1–4; sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hensley, 59 Ohio St.3d 136 (discovery/tolling for child-abuse corpus delicti)
- State v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 239 (Crim.R. 7(D) cannot be used to change identity/degree when that alters penalty)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (sufficiency/weight standards explained)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (Confrontation Clause allows reasonable limits on cross-examination)
- Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 (trial court has broad discretion over cross-examination scope)