State v. Hartings
2018 Ohio 2035
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Victim A.B., age 17, visited the home of her friend’s aunt (J.B.) where defendant Brian Hartings (age 42), J.B.’s long‑term partner, lived; A.B. considered Hartings a quasi‑uncle.
- While at the house on August 28, 2016, Hartings engaged in unwanted touching, led A.B. to the basement, pushed her onto a pool table, removed her clothes, and had penile‑vaginal intercourse. A.B. repeatedly told him she was uncomfortable, said “no,” and asked him to “get off.”
- A.B. recorded audio of at least part of the assault on her phone; the audio (played at trial) captured her saying she “can’t do this,” “no,” and asking him to stop.
- Hartings was arrested after J.B. contacted police; in a post‑arrest interview he initially denied contact, then admitted sexual conduct but claimed it was consensual and altered details about how clothing was removed.
- Indicted for rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)), Hartings was convicted by a jury, designated a Tier III sex offender, and sentenced to the mandatory 10‑year prison term (within the statutory range).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence for rape (force/threat) | State: evidence (victim testimony + audio) proves Hartings purposely compelled A.B. by force/threat; victim repeatedly said no and was overcome by fear | Hartings: A.B.’s testimony not credible; insufficient proof of force or threat; claimed consensual sex | Court: Affirmed — evidence viewed in favor of prosecution was sufficient; conviction not against manifest weight given age disparity, relationship, victim’s statements, and audio recording |
| Sentencing: court considered required sentencing statutes (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12) | State: trial court complied with sentencing statutes and considered PSI and factors; sentence within statutory range | Hartings: trial court failed to properly consider sentencing principles and guidelines | Court: Affirmed — trial court stated it had considered the purposes and factors, reviewed the PSI, and record does not clearly and convincingly show lack of support for the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilkins, 64 Ohio St.2d 382, 415 N.E.2d 303 (Ohio 1980) (rape requires that perpetrator purposely compel submission by force or threat)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51, 600 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio 1992) (force can be psychological; victim’s belief of threatened force suffices)
- State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56, 526 N.E.2d 304 (Ohio 1988) (force element depends on relative age, size, strength, and relationship)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))