State v. Horn, 2020 Ohio 3546

Michael Horn was convicted by a jury of six counts of rape with sexually violent predator specifications arising from three acts; the State elected three counts under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c).
Trial court sentenced Horn to 10 years-to-life on each elected count, to run consecutively (30 years-to-life total).
On direct appeal the Sixth District affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that a familial relationship is not a "mental or physical condition" under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) and reversing Count 3 (which rested only on the familial relationship).
The Supreme Court remanded to the Sixth District to determine whether the remaining evidence (that J.M. was "low functioning") alone supported Count 5 and then to remand for resentencing.
On remand the Sixth District reviewed sufficiency for Count 5, found the evidence (J.M.’s ADHD/medication, testimony showing limited understanding, poor hygiene, deputy’s description of her as "low functioning," and Horn’s awareness of her impairment) sufficient to prove substantial impairment and Horn’s knowledge of it, and affirmed Count 5.
Because the Supreme Court reversed Count 3, the case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing consistent with that reversal.

Issue	State's Argument	Horn's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict on Count 5 under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) (mental/physical condition substantially impairing ability to consent)	J.M. was "low functioning": diagnosed ADHD, medicated, displayed limited comprehension (brought a teddy, confused classes, could not explain "erection"), poor hygiene; Horn knew of her impairment	Insufficient evidence that J.M. had a mental/physical condition that substantially impaired consent or that Horn knew of such impairment (brief, record-citation-free claim)	Affirmed: a rational juror could find substantial impairment and Horn’s knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether familial relationship qualifies as a "mental or physical condition" under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c)	State relied on Horn’s familial relationship to victims as proof of impairment (as framed on appeal)	Horn argued familial relationship is not a mental/physical condition	Supreme Court: familial relationship is not a "condition"; Count 3 reversed (remand context)

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
State v. Zeh, 31 Ohio St.3d 99 (1987) (defines "substantial impairment" as reduction in ability to appraise or control conduct)