State v. Hebdon
2013 Ohio 1729
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Hebdon was convicted in Butler County Area III Court on two counts of sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.06(A)(1) for alleged touching of his stepdaughter, B.S., in Sept 2010 and Apr 2011.
- Pretrial discovery included a request for B.S.'s diaries; the state argued remaining diary portions would traumatize B.S., while the defense sought full disclosure under Crim.R. 16(B).
- The trial court conducted an in camera diary review and proceeded to a bench trial without allowing access to the diary portions not disclosed.
- B.S. testified to touching of her breast and buttocks by Hebdon, along with accompanying statements and patterns of behavior that suggested a sexual context.
- Hebdon testified that any touching was a joke or for instructional purposes and denied sexual arousal or gratification, asserting a generally affectionate family dynamic.
- The trial court found Hebdon guilty on both counts, and he timely appealed raising claims of insufficient evidence, weight of the evidence, and discovery-related due process issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence for sexual imposition | Hebdon argues the evidence fails to prove sexual contact for arousal or gratification. | Hebdon contends the contact was not proven to be for sexual arousal or gratification and weighed against credibility. | Conviction upheld; evidence supports purpose of sexual arousal or gratification and not against weight. |
| Discovery and in camera diary review | State properly nondisclosed portions were withheld under Crim.R. 16(D) with a valid certification. | Hebdon claims denial of full diary access violated Crim.R. 16(B) and due process. | Discovery ruling affirmed; diaries not required to be disclosed beyond what was already provided. |
| Due process and impact of nondisclosure on defense | Non-disclosure did not prejudice a fair defense given the record and in camera ruling. | Non-disclosure deprived Hebdon of exculpatory material affecting trial fairness. | No reversible error; trial court acted within discretion, and lack of disclosure did not prejudice defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (establishes sufficiency and weight standards for criminal verdicts)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (paradigmatic standard for sufficiency review; 'whether any rational trier of fact could find' elements proven)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (establishes credibility evaluation framework for appellate review)