State v. Fetherolf
2017 Ohio 1316
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Michael J. Fetherolf was tried by jury for sexual offenses against his daughter A.C.; charges focused on a September 2013 incident after which A.C. promptly disclosed abuse. A partial Y‑chromosome DNA profile from the crotch of the victim’s underwear was consistent with Fetherolf. The court dismissed many earlier-timeframe counts for insufficiency and submitted three counts (rape, GSI, intimidation) to the jury; verdicts were guilty. The rape and GSI convictions were merged for sentencing; rape carried a mandatory term and Fetherolf was sentenced to 25 years to life.
- At trial the State presented testimony from the ER physician (Dr. McManus), a SANE (Teresa Warnimont), social worker, detective, family members who received A.C.’s outcry, a former paramour (Pamela Hawkins), and Fetherolf’s probation officer. A.C. was unavailable to testify at trial; a videotaped deposition was played.
- Defense objections at trial included asserted vouching for the victim, admission of other‑acts evidence (Hawkins’ testimony), and testimony indicating Fetherolf was on probation. Many objections were overruled; some counts were dismissed on Crim.R. 29 motion.
- Post‑verdict Fetherolf moved for a new trial alleging the State failed to disclose a 2015 misdemeanor falsification conviction of Hawkins; the trial court denied the motion. Fetherolf appealed sentencing and denial of new trial; appeals were consolidated.
- The court reviewed evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and unobjected‑to issues for plain error; it emphasized the strength of the State’s case (DNA corroboration and supporting testimony) in assessing prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of witnesses’ statements about victim’s veracity (vouching) | State: testimony described consistency of disclosures and medical practice; not vouching for credibility. | Fetherolf: multiple witnesses improperly vouched that A.C. was truthful, including SANE and physician. | Court: testimony did not explicitly vouch for credibility; isolated SANE remark not plain error given corroborating evidence (DNA) and jury access to deposition. |
| Admission of "other acts" evidence (Hawkins’ testimony about sexualized conduct and shopping for childlike clothing) | State: other‑acts admissible under Evid.R.404(B) for motive, intent, plan, knowledge; court instructed jury limiting use. | Fetherolf: testimony about consensual sexual behavior and sexual interests was prejudicial and irrelevant. | Court: admission within trial court’s discretion; even if tenuous, any error not prejudicial given overall evidence. |
| Testimony revealing defendant’s prior conviction/probation | State: testimony arose in narrative and produced partly by defense strategy; probation testimony provided context and explained flight/location; DNA collection tied to arrest. | Fetherolf: references to felony probation and conviction were improper when defendant did not testify (Evid.R.609). | Court: defense did not contemporaneously object; trial court itself noted impropriety but trial strategy may have favored admission; any error not prejudicial given strength of evidence. |
| Failure to disclose witness’s later misdemeanor conviction; prosecutorial misconduct claim | State: did not know of Hawkins’ 2015 falsification conviction and had disclosed known convictions; Hawkins’ credibility already impeached; nondisclosure not willful or prejudicial. | Fetherolf: nondisclosure of Hawkins’ falsification conviction was discovery violation entitling him to new trial; cumulative prosecutorial misconduct deprived fair trial. | Court: no willful suppression shown, defendant could have discovered conviction with diligence, and additional conviction would not have materially changed outcome; prosecutorial‑misconduct claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard for trial court reviewed)
- Mammone v. State, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 (Ohio 2014) (plain‑error standard for unobjected evidentiary issues)
- Morris v. State, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio 2012) (admission of other‑acts evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Long v. State, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain‑error cautionary standard)
- LaMar v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (Ohio 2002) (standards for new trial based on prosecutorial or discovery errors)
- Petro v. State, 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1947) (consideration of reasonable diligence and newly discovered evidence in new‑trial analysis)