State v. Habeeb-Ullah
2019 Ohio 4517
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Victim C.M., born before 2000, alleged two separate sexual incidents by stepfather Naim Habeeb-Ullah in 2010 when she was about ten: (1) he sat at the end of her bed and entered her room after seeing her sleepwear; (2) later he pulled her onto a couch, placed her ankles on his shoulders, and "pried/poked" at her vaginal area over her underwear for about a minute; she moved away and he begged her not to tell.
- C.M. disclosed the incidents to her mother in January 2018; mother reported to police. Appellant acknowledged being present but denied touching C.M., saying she touched herself.
- Indictment (April 2018) charged GSI (R.C. 2907.05), attempted rape (R.C. 2923.02 / 2907.02(A)(1)(b)), attempted sexual battery (R.C. 2923.02 / 2907.03(A)(5)), abduction, and kidnapping; two counts were dismissed pretrial.
- A jury convicted appellant of GSI, attempted rape, and attempted sexual battery. The court agreed the counts merged but nonetheless imposed concurrent prison terms on each count. Appellant was designated a Tier III sex offender.
- On appeal the court affirmed rulings excluding three categories of defense evidence (mother’s opinion on victim’s truthfulness; SCCSB social-worker testimony; inquiry about third-party access to victim), vacated the attempted-rape conviction for insufficient evidence, and remanded for the state to elect a single merged count and for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of mother’s opinion on victim’s character for truthfulness (Evid.R. 608(A)(1)) | Exclusion proper because no foundation tying mother’s limited contact six years earlier to victim’s present character | Testimony was admissible to attack credibility of victim | Exclusion affirmed: insufficient temporal foundation; testimony not relevant |
| Admission of SCCSB social-worker testimony about investigation classification | Testimony cumulative or irrelevant; CAC and pediatric expert already addressed findings | Testimony would show unsubstantiated classification and victim/mother uncooperativeness, relevant to defense | Exclusion affirmed: cumulative and, in context, SCCSB "unsubstantiated" finding had limited relevance |
| Inquiry into other individuals’ access to victim and alleged placements (rape-shield concerns) | Records showed no placements; even if there were, relevance not established and would imply protected sexual-activity evidence | Defense sought records to identify possible alternative access that could explain delayed disclosure | Exclusion affirmed: court did not err; no showing of relevance and no indication of placements |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted rape; merger and sentencing on multiple merged counts | Jury verdict supported; attempted-rape sentencing appropriate; court may sentence on elected count | Evidence showed only contact over underwear (no penetration); counts merge and state must elect one count for sentencing | Attempted-rape conviction vacated for insufficient evidence (no substantial step toward sexual conduct); merger requires state election and resentencing — case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987) (trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude relevant evidence)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the trier of fact)
- State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107 (1996) (attempted rape requires intent to commit sexual conduct, not merely sexual contact)
- State v. Heinish, 50 Ohio St.3d 231 (1990) (evidence of intent to commit rape must be shown beyond acts that support only sexual contact)
- State v. Woods, 48 Ohio St.2d 127 (1976) (attempt requires a substantial step toward the planned crime)