State v. Greenwood
2021 Ohio 921
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Eric Greenwood was charged with sexual imposition for entering victim S.T.’s bedroom, exposing his penis, and rubbing it on her right shoulder on or about October 24, 2018.
- S.T. is a 65‑year‑old woman with mental retardation/developmental disabilities (MRDD) who lives with caregiver E.D.; S.T. testified she did not consent and was frightened.
- J.J. (Greenwood’s then‑girlfriend/ex‑girlfriend) testified she saw Greenwood rubbing his penis on S.T.’s shoulder; E.D. and S.T. reported the incident about three days later.
- Greenwood was tried by a jury in Franklin County Municipal Court, convicted of third‑degree misdemeanor sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.06(A)(1)), and sentenced on September 10, 2019.
- On appeal Greenwood raised four issues: sufficiency of the evidence (whether a shoulder can be an erogenous zone), manifest weight, alleged erroneous jury instructions, and ineffective assistance for failing to object to instructions.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Greenwood's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (sexual contact element) | Evidence (victim testimony, J.J.’s observation, circumstances) supports that touching could be sexual contact for arousal/gratification. | A shoulder is not an erogenous zone; no reasonable juror could find sexual contact. | Affirmed: court held erogenous‑zone determination is for the factfinder; evidence viewed favorably to prosecution was sufficient. |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Witnesses were credible and jury properly weighed demeanor and consistency. | Witnesses unreliable (victim’s disability, delay in reporting, ex‑girlfriend motive, investigative mistakes). | Affirmed: not a manifest miscarriage; jury entitled to assess credibility. |
| Jury instructions (use of "to wit" factual language) | Court properly read the statute and also defined sexual contact and required proof beyond a reasonable doubt. | Instruction quoting complaint facts ("to wit: rubbed his penis on her arm, shoulder area") misled jury into treating sexual contact as established. | Affirmed: no plain error—instructions included statutory definition and elements and did not prejudice defendant. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to instructions | Trial counsel pursued credibility/weight strategy rather than challenging statutory phrasing; strategic choice. | Counsel was deficient for not insisting on a fuller statutory instruction, which likely affected outcome. | Affirmed: no deficient performance (strategic choice) and, even if deficient, no prejudice under Strickland. |
Key Cases Cited
- Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain‑error: courts notice plain error only to prevent manifest miscarriage of justice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (discussion of weight of the evidence standard)
- Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (legal sufficiency standard for conviction review)
- Robinson, 124 Ohio St.3d 76 (2009) (appellate sufficiency review applying Jenks)
- Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (2002) (credibility evaluation not part of sufficiency review)
- Anderson, 116 Ohio App.3d 441 (1996) (permitting trier of fact to infer sexual purpose from type, nature, circumstances of contact)
- Astley, 36 Ohio App.3d 247 (1987) (sexual arousal/gratification standard for contact)
- DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (trial court and factfinder role in assessing witness credibility)
- Core v. State, 191 Ohio App.3d 651 (2010) (legislative intent that nontraditional body parts may be erogenous zones)