State v. Gutierrez, 2011 Ohio 3126

Gutierrez was convicted of six counts of rape of his young step-daughter A.P. and sentenced to life in prison without parole for the first three counts and life without parole for the remaining three counts.
The acts occurred beginning in kindergarten (2006-2007) and continuing through July 2008; the charges covered multiple forms of sexual conduct with a child under ten.
A competency hearing found A.P. competent to testify; the trial included a video-recorded forensic interview of A.P. and testimony from several witnesses.
Gutierrez sought sealed records from FRC/CPSU and A.P.’s grand jury testimony; the trial court conducted in-camera review and denied disclosure.
Gutierrez challenges include competency ruling, discovery/Brady issues, denial of access to a defense consultant, hearsay and the forensic-video admission, juror impartiality, sufficiency/weight of the evidence, ineffective assistance, and postrelease control (PRC) terminology in the judgment, with the court affirming in part and remanding in part.
The appellate court ultimately affirmed most aspects but remanded to correct the PRC provision in the judgment entry to reflect the hearing’s actual imposition of five years PRC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency of the child witness	Gutierrez contends A.P. was not competent to testify.	Gutierrez argues the court abused discretion by deeming A.P. competent.	Competency affirmed; trial court properly evaluated factors and did not abuse discretion.
Disclosure of sealed records under Brady	Gutierrez claims Brady requires disclosure of favorable sealed records.	Gutierrez asserts failure to disclose violated due process and confrontation rights.	In-camera review upheld; no exculpatory material found; Brady/Confrontation rights not violated.
Access to consulting expert and sealed records	Gutierrez argues lack of access denied defense expertise.	Gutierrez did not show error given records contained no exculpatory evidence.	No error; trial court properly limited access and consultant was not an appointed expert for testimony.
Admission of hearsay and forensic interview video	Gutierrez challenges hearsay and bolstering from multiple sources and the video.	Prosecution properly admitted statements under exceptions and video under Rule 801(D) to rebut credibility challenges.	Admission deemed proper; no Confrontation Clause violation; not reversible error.
Jury impartiality and juror No. 8	Gutierrez contends juror No. 8 was biased and should have been excused for cause.	Court properly assessed impartiality; alternate jurors available; no plain error.	No reversible error; trial court did not abuse discretion.

State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247 (1991) (competency factors for child witnesses under ten)
State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438 (1998) (trial court's competency ruling given deference unless abuse of discretion)
State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114 (1990) (Confrontation/Brady implications for confidential records)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements require cross-examination unless exempt or present at trial)
State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d 295 (1993) (excited utterance requirements and child testimony considerations)
State v. Storch, 66 Ohio St.3d 280 (1993) (concerning expert/lay testimony and rehabilitation of credibility through video)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (material exculpatory evidence standard (Bagley test))