State v. Gomez, 2017 Ohio 8146

Defendant Pedro Ernesto Gomez was indicted on multiple counts: seven counts of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)) and one count of gross sexual imposition, alleging offenses against two of his children occurring across school-year time windows (six‑month and nine‑month ranges).
The indictment used statutory language, each count listed victim initials and year of birth, and alleged offenses occurred "on or between" stated date ranges rather than specific days.
Gomez requested a bill of particulars seeking precise dates/times/locations; the state responded that it had no more specific dates and produced investigative and child-services reports.
Gomez moved to quash the indictment as unconstitutionally vague and later proceeded to trial; he was convicted of five rape counts and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
On appeal Gomez argued (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a more specific bill of particulars and by refusing to quash the indictment, and (2) his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the state failed to prove the offenses occurred within the charged timeframes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Bill of particulars: whether the state had to supply specific dates/times	State: must supply specific dates/times only if it possesses them and they are material	Gomez: indictment and state's bill were vague; he needed exact dates to prepare defense	Court: State complied—it provided all information it possessed; victims could not recall dates; no alibi or other showing that dates were material; no error
Motion to quash indictment: whether indictment was constitutionally sufficient	State: indictment using statutory language, victim initials, birth years, and date ranges sufficiently notified defendant	Gomez: indictment vague, did not differentiate offenses or give specific dates/identify victims adequately	Court: indictment met constitutional and Crim.R. standards given child victims’ inability to recall precise dates; time windows and identifying details adequate
Manifest weight/sufficiency re: timing of offenses	State: victims’ grade-based testimony tied offenses to the charged school-year ranges; evidence sufficient	Gomez: convictions unsupported because state failed to prove the acts occurred in the indicted timeframes	Court: evidence (children’s testimony pegged to school grade years) supported convictions; not an exceptional case warranting reversal

State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169 (bill of particulars: state must supply specific dates/times if it possesses them)
State v. Lawrinson, 49 Ohio St.3d 238 (state must provide specific date information when it has it and the information is material)
State v. Barnecut, 44 Ohio App.3d 149 (factors for bill of particulars: possession of info and materiality to defense)
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (indictment must contain elements and sufficient factual detail to inform defendant of charges)
State v. Childs, 88 Ohio St.3d 558 (indictment sufficiency standard reiterating Hamling)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest‑weight review and appellate role as thirteenth juror)
State v. Neal, 57 N.E.3d 272 (recognizing reasonable inexactitude for child‑victim cases)