State v. Hernandez, 2019 Ohio 5242

Defendant Nelson Hernandez (grandfather) was indicted on multiple sexual-offense counts (rape, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping with sexual motivation) based on conduct dated 2006–2012 involving victim D.V.; jury convicted him of six counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of kidnapping with sexual motivation; sentenced to 18 years to life.
Victim D.V. (17 at trial) testified to repeated assaults by Hernandez beginning at about age 5 through age 10, including digital and object penetration; she disclosed the abuse in 2017–2018.
The State sought to admit Evid.R. 404(B) evidence of prior sexual abuse of another family member, N.G., alleged to have occurred more than 25 years earlier, arguing the prior acts showed a common scheme/identity and intent.
The trial court allowed N.G.’s testimony as "signature" or plan evidence; defense objected that identity was not at issue and intent (sexual gratification) is inherent in the charged offenses.
On appeal the Eighth District held the other-acts evidence was not admissible under R.C. 2945.59/Evid.R. 404(B): it did not prove identity, plan, or intent and had little probative value while posing high risk of unfair prejudice; the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The court found the limiting instruction insufficient to cure prejudice; the remaining assignments of error were rendered moot by reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of long-ago other-acts (Evid.R.404(B) / R.C.2945.59)	N.G.’s prior abuse shows a common scheme/"signature" to establish identity, intent, plan (grooming/targeting)	Identity was not disputed; intent (sexual gratification) is inherent in these offenses; prior acts were temporally remote and factually dissimilar — admission was propensity evidence	Reversed: other-acts evidence inadmissible — did not satisfy identity, plan, or intent exceptions and was unfairly prejudicial; trial court abused discretion
Whether limiting instruction cured prejudice / other trial errors (JMOA, manifest weight, jury instructions)	Limiting instruction mitigated prejudice; other trial rulings were proper	Instruction insufficient; errors warrant relief	Instruction deemed insufficient for the 404(B) prejudice; remaining issues moot after reversal

State v. Williams, 983 N.E.2d 1278 (Ohio 2012) (articulates 404(B) analysis and legitimate purposes for other-acts evidence)
State v. Curry, 330 N.E.2d 720 (Ohio 1975) (other-acts admissible when part of same transaction or to prove identity via common scheme)
State v. Lowe, 634 N.E.2d 616 (Ohio 1994) (modus operandi/behavioral fingerprint theory for identity evidence)
State v. Jamison, 552 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio 1990) (modus operandi can identify perpetrator)
State v. Schaim, 600 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio 1992) (high prejudicial risk from inflammatory sexual-act evidence)
State v. Noling, 781 N.E.2d 88 (Ohio 2002) (standards for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
State v. Hart, 118 N.E.3d 454 (8th Dist. 2018) (recent Eighth District discussion of other-acts admission and prejudice)
United States v. Chambers, 642 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2011) (definition and discussion of "grooming" in child-sexual-abuse context)