State v. Garfield, 2011 Ohio 2606

Background

Edward Garfield was charged by indictment with rape of a victim under 13 in Lorain County (June–July 2004).
Trial spanned Aug. 24–28, 2009; the jury found Garfield guilty and the court sentenced him to life imprisonment with Tier III sex-offender status (Nov. 25, 2009).
The victim, E.B., born Feb. 1997, disclosed delayed abuse history, with alleged acts occurring when she was seven.
The State presented testimony from E.B., investigators, and a clinical expert; Garfield offered his wife, brother-in-law, and a psychologist in defense.
No physical evidence existed; the primary proof was the victim’s testimony and corroboration through witness accounts and documentary material.
Garfield appeals raising ten assignments of error; the court of appeals affirms.</Background>
Issues are to be presented concisely under five headings, with parties’ positions and holding summarized below.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency/weight of E.B.’s testimony	Garfield argues the evidence is insufficient and against the manifest weight.	Garfield contends lack of physical evidence and credibility issues negate conviction.	Conviction not against the manifest weight or sufficiency; credible testimony supported by record.
Admissibility of the forensic interview DVD	Garfield argues the DVD should have been excluded for lack of proper listing and potential prejudice.	State properly disclosed; any evidentiary concerns were waived or harmless.	Assignment overruled; any evidentiary error deemed harmless; no reversible error.
Surprise witness not pre-listed	Garfield claims surprise rebuttal witness (C.F.) violated discovery and prejudiced defense.	Court limited witness testimony and Garfield had notice; no abuse of discretion.	Assignment overruled; court did not abuse discretion in handling late-disclosed witness.
Amendment of indictment/bill of particulars during trial	Garfield contends improper timing and prejudice from amendments.	Amendments to conform to evidence were proper and did not prejudice defense.	Assignment overruled; court did not abuse discretion in allowing amendments.
Ineffective assistance of counsel and victim evaluation	Garfield alleges trial counsel's performance was deficient in multiple respects; seeks pre-trial victim evaluation.	Record shows defense adequate; no demonstrated prejudice; evaluation denied within discretion.	Assignment overruled; no ineffective assistance demonstrated; pre-trial evaluation within trial court discretion.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Adams, 9th Dist. No. 05CA008685, 2005-Ohio-4360 (Ohio 2005) (No requirement of corroboration for rape conviction; credibility for juries to weigh.)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (Ohio App. 1986) (Weighing evidence; manifest weight review limited to extraordinary circumstances.)
State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio 1985) (Indictment times/dates need not be exact absent prejudice.)
State v. Jackson, 86 Ohio App.3d 29 (Ohio App. 1993) (Credibility determinations are for the jury.)
State v. Gray, 2009-Ohio-3165 (Ohio 9th Dist.) (Preservation of evidentiary error for appeal; forfeiture rules apply.)