State v. Gibson
2016 Ohio 7778
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Myron Gibson was convicted by a jury of two counts each of rape, gross sexual imposition, and kidnapping for sexual assaults on his two nephews, D.G. and J.H., both under age ten.
- Allegations involved digital anal penetration and touching of the boys’ penises and buttocks while the children stayed at their father (defendant’s brother)’s residence.
- D.G.’s mother observed anal redness and reported D.G.’s disclosures to medical personnel; a physician testified that lack of physical findings is common in child sexual-abuse victims.
- J.H. initially denied abuse to police but later admitted to his mother and subsequently to police, though he was described as reluctant.
- At trial J.H. testified that his father threatened him if he testified against Gibson; defense did not object at trial.
- The trial court allowed the state to amend one count’s alleged date range to match the other counts; Gibson objected to several evidentiary rulings on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manifest weight of the evidence (separate claims re: D.G. and J.H.) | State relied on victims’ testimony, medical exam, behavioral evidence; evidence established guilt beyond manifest miscarriage of justice. | Gibson argued the apartment layout and proximity of others made the alleged assaults implausible and that verdict was against manifest weight. | Affirmed — jury credibility determinations stand; defendant offered no contrary evidence to outweigh children’s testimony. |
| Admission of J.H.’s testimony that father threatened him | State: testimony relevant to J.H.’s credibility and bias/fear to explain reluctance to testify. | Gibson: testimony improperly suggested consciousness of guilt by acts of a third party and unfairly prejudiced him. | No reversible error — defense forfeited objection; testimony admissible to impeach/assess witness fear; concurrence expressed concern but agreed result unchanged. |
| Detective asked about threats during interview (state’s question) | State elicited background of witness interviews. | Gibson: question elicited improper threatening-conduct evidence. | Court sustained objection and instructed jury to disregard; presumed jury followed instruction; no error. |
| Leading question on direct to D.G.’s mother re: father’s indifference | State: relevance to context and credibility of home environment. | Gibson: improper leading on direct and not relevant to defendant’s culpability. | Harmless error — question was leading but not prejudicial or outcome-determinative. |
| Amendment of indictment date for Count 9 (kidnapping) | State moved to amend to a date range consistent with other counts and the evidence; date not an essential element. | Gibson: amendment improperly enlarged date range and prejudiced defense. | Permitted — Crim.R.7(D) allows amendment for date variance when date not essential and defendant was not prejudiced. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (manifest-weight standard explained)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (factfinder decides witness credibility)
- State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61 (Ohio 1964) (factfinder may accept or reject portions of testimony)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1983) (rarely overturn verdict on manifest weight)
- State v. Osie, 140 Ohio St.3d 131 (Ohio 2014) (forfeiture of appellate review when no timely objection)
- State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio 1985) (date/time need not be specific in indictment)
- Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (U.S. 1987) (presumption that jury follows curative instructions)
- State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 2008) (no error where trial court sustained objection and instructed jury to disregard)