State v. Feliciano
2012 Ohio 6149
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- S.H., a 10-year-old, testified that Feliciano touched her vagina during a February 2010 incident at the Felicianos’ home.
- Feliciano was charged with gross sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) with a sexually violent predator specification.
- The jury acquitted Feliciano of other charges, but convicted him of gross sexual imposition and the trial court found the S.V.P. specification true.
- Sentencing was four years to life imprisonment.
- Feliciano timely appealed raising four assignments of error in challenging discovery sanctions, sufficiency of evidence, manifest weight, and a mistrial ruling.
- The appellate court affirmed Feliciano’s conviction and rejected the assignments of error, with a concurrence and a partial dissent addressing discovery sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery sanction exclusion是否適當 | Feliciano argues exclusion of Detective Carpentiere violated rights and was improper. | State contends sanction was proper due to Crim.R. 16 violations and lack of notice. | No abuse of discretion; exclusion upheld. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for GSI | S.H.’s testimony and the lack of direct evidence of arousal undermined guilt. | Evidence supported the jury’s inference of arousal from the circumstances. | Sufficient evidence supports conviction. |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Verdict against the weight as there was no direct sexual act and proximity concerns. | Jury could infer arousal from the testimony and surrounding circumstances. | Not against the manifest weight; upheld. |
| Mistrial due to newspaper in jury room | Newspaper in jury room tainted proceedings. | Court properly evaluated juror reports and denied mistrial. | No abuse of discretion; mistrial denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Papadelis v. City of Lakewood, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1987) (trial court must impose least severe sanction and avoid gamesmanship)
- Barrios v. State, 2007-Ohio-7025 (Ohio 2007) (exclusion of evidence is permissible but must balance consequences)
- Calise v. State, 2012-Ohio-4797 (Ohio 2012) (discovery rules give courts discretion to exclude undisclosed testimony)
- Papadelis (Lakewood), 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (1987) (see above (same as Papadelis))
- Cobb v. State, 81 Ohio App.3d 179 (Ohio App.3d 1991) (no direct testimony required to show arousal; infer from circumstances)
- Garfield v. State, 2011-Ohio-2606 (Ohio 2011) (victim testimony need not be corroborated)
- Adams v. State, 2005-Ohio-4360 (Ohio 2005) (victim credibility issues fall under weight of evidence)
- Otten v. State, State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (weight-of-evidence standard for appellate review)
- DeHass v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility largely for the trier of fact)
- Cross v. State, 2011-Ohio-3250 (Ohio 2011) (weighing credibility and evidence on appeal)