State v. Horn (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 960

Michael C. Horn was charged with six counts of rape involving his step‑daughter (S.M.) and his niece by marriage (J.M.); each count included sexually‑violent‑predator specifications.
Counts 1, 3, and 5 were prosecuted under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) (victim's ability to resist or consent substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition); Counts 2, 4, and 6 alleged submission by force under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2). The (A)(2) counts were merged into the corresponding (A)(1)(c) counts for sentencing.
Horn was convicted on all counts and received consecutive 10‑to‑life sentences on Counts 1, 3, and 5.
On appeal Horn argued insufficient evidence that the victims were substantially impaired by a mental or physical condition. The court of appeals affirmed: Count 1 on the basis of sleep, Count 3 on the basis of Horn’s familial relationship with S.M., and Count 5 on the basis of J.M.’s low functioning and Horn’s familial relationship.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review and held that a familial relationship is not a "mental or physical condition" under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c); it reversed the court of appeals in part and remanded for reconsideration of Count 5 in light of the alternative low‑functioning ground.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a familial relationship qualifies as a "mental or physical condition" under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c)	The court of appeals treated the familial relationship as supporting a finding of substantial impairment (the State relied on that theory)	Horn: familial relationship is not a mental or physical condition; evidence insufficient under (A)(1)(c)	A familial relationship is not a "mental or physical condition." Convictions cannot stand under (A)(1)(c) on that theory
Remedy when conviction rests on familial‑relationship theory but alternate ground exists	Court of appeals also found J.M. "low functioning," which could independently support Count 5	Horn sought reversal for insufficiency; argued familial‑relationship theory insufficient	Judgment reversed in part; remanded for the court of appeals to determine whether the low‑functioning ground alone supports Count 5, then for resentencing as appropriate

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (sufficiency review standard)
State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56, 526 N.E.2d 304 (parent‑child rape: force may be psychological/subtle)
State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51, 600 N.E.2d 661 (same principle regarding non‑overt force in familial contexts)