State v. Fears
2017 Ohio 6978
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Lonnie K. Fears (stepfather) was indicted for multiple counts arising from alleged sexual contact with his then-seven-year-old stepdaughter between Jan–Apr 2015; jury convicted on two counts of gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)) and acquitted on kidnapping counts; sentence: two years community control and Tier II sexual-offender classification.
- Key witnesses: the child (J.H.), her therapist Felicia Coffman, child-abuse investigator Shannon Sneed, Detective Frankie Reed, the child’s mother (W.F.), and Fears (who testified).
- Coffman and Sneed testified to out-of-court statements by J.H. describing that Fears massaged/rubbed her genital area more than once (some statements said to have occurred under clothing/in the bedroom); Coffman made a clinical assessment and continued treatment; Sneed conducted a family assessment and contacted police after finding the allegation “indicated.”
- Defense theory: touches were non-sexual hygiene/bathing or medicinal lotion application because the child had hygiene/soiling issues; also challenged admissibility of the child’s statements to social workers as improper hearsay and alleged ineffective assistance for failing to preserve some objections.
- Trial court: found the child competent to testify; admitted J.H.’s statements to Coffman and Sneed under Evid.R. 803(4) (statements for medical diagnosis/treatment); jury credited the child’s pretrial consistent statements over later in-court “mixed up” testimony and convicted; appeals court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Fears) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of child’s out‑of‑court statements to therapist and social worker | Statements were made for medical diagnosis/treatment and thus fall under Evid.R. 803(4) | Testimony was extrinsic prior inconsistent statements used to impeach and therefore inadmissible hearsay | Court: Admitted — Coffman and Sneed statements were for diagnosis/treatment and properly admitted under Evid.R. 803(4) |
| Ineffective assistance for not objecting to Sneed’s testimony about an alleged Hawaii incident | State: counsel’s performance did not prejudice outcome; transcript shows objection at relevant point and other strong evidence | Fears: counsel failed to object to inadmissible testimony about an unindicted Hawaii incident | Court: No prejudice shown; counsel objected at the appropriate time and cumulative evidence made outcome unlikely to change |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove sexual purpose (element of GSI) | State: testimony (Coffman, Sneed, detective, and child) established repeated touching/massaging of an erogenous zone in private, from which sexual purpose may be inferred | Fears: touching was for hygiene/medical lotion application, not sexual gratification | Court: Sufficient evidence — jury could infer sexual arousal/gratification from type, nature, and circumstances of contact |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: jury reasonably credited child’s consistent pretrial disclosures and witnesses corroborating those disclosures | Fears: inconsistencies, child’s psychological/attention issues, and plausible nonsexual explanations outweigh state proof | Court: No manifest miscarriage of justice — credibility determinations for the jury; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Muttart v. Ohio, 116 Ohio St.3d 5 (2007) (limits admissibility of child statements to those made for diagnosis/treatment; distinguishes testimonial versus nontestimonial statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (testimonial/non‑testimonial statement framework)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review in Ohio)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency from manifest‑weight review)
- Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1 (2011) (deference to jury in resolving conflicting inferences)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (constitutional sufficiency standard)
- Frazier v. Cupp, 61 Ohio St.3d 247 (1991) (standards for determining a child witness’s competency to testify)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)