2015 Ohio 3095
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Haskell was convicted of one count of sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.06(A).
- S.B. was 14 years old at the time; Haskell was 36.
- The offense occurred in the early morning hours at Haskell’s home in Upper Sandusky, Ohio, after a night with family.
- The State presented testimony from S.B. and from Eddy, Elmer, and Deputy Hoy.
- Haskell challenged hearsay and sufficiency/weight arguments on appeal; the trial court denied acquittal."5-6 items, legally material; procedural posture noted but not central to the issues addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hearsay evidence admissibility | Excited utterances were admissible. | Hearsay statements lacked a recognized exception. | Excited utterances properly admitted. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence supported all elements of sexual imposition. | Evidence was insufficient to convict. | Evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. |
| Corroboration under RC 2907.06(B) | Corroboration present by multiple witnesses and defendant’s proximity admission. | Corroboration required more or different showing. | Corroboration sufficient; jury need not be instructed on corroboration. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bump, 2013-Ohio-1006 (3d Dist. Logan 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d 295 (Ohio 1993) (excited utterance test under Evid.R. 803(2))
- State v. Economo, 76 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1996) (corroboration need not be independently sufficient)
- State v. Lieurance, 2013-Ohio-3875 (3d Dist. Auglaize 2013) (corroboration through multiple sources permissible)
- State v. Rossi, 2009-Ohio-1963 (3d Dist. Montgomery 2009) (additional corroboration indicators accepted)