State v. Johnson
2017 Ohio 7702
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim E.J., age 8–9 while living with her grandmother and appellant Robert Johnson, later disclosed in 2013 (after returning to her mother's house and after the grandmother's death) that Johnson sexually assaulted her twice in 2012.
- E.J. gave statements to a police officer and underwent a recorded forensic interview and medical exam at a Child Advocacy Center (CAC).
- A Mahoning County grand jury indicted Johnson on two counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition.
- At trial the jury acquitted Johnson of both rape counts and one gross sexual imposition count, but convicted him of one count of gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)).
- The trial court sentenced Johnson to 60 months imprisonment, imposed Tier II sex-offender classification, and included post-release control; Johnson timely appealed raising four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of CAC videotaped interview as a prior consistent statement | State: admissible under Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(b) to rebut defense charge of recent fabrication/improper influence | Johnson: defense denied recent fabrication; prior consistent statement used merely to bolster witness after impeachment | Admissible — trial court did not abuse discretion because defense attacked credibility (including in opening) and cross-examined on inconsistencies, permitting rehabilitation under the rule |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for gross sexual imposition | State: testimony, CAC interview, officer testimony, physical exam, and physical evidence (locks, duct tape in house) support conviction | Johnson: conviction rests solely on E.J.’s inconsistent testimony; acquittals on other counts make conviction unsupported | Sufficient — viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, evidence supported each element (sexual contact with a child under 13) |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: credibility determinations are for the jury; inconsistent verdicts across counts are permissible | Johnson: jury lost its way by convicting on one count while acquitting on related counts; videotape prejudiced jury | Not against manifest weight — appellate court will not disturb credibility findings; inconsistent verdicts across counts are not inherently reversible |
| Post-release control advisement / sentence voidness | State: trial court need only advise of the mandatory term and the maximum sanction (up to one-half the stated prison term) for violations | Johnson: court failed to specify the nine-month cap for a single violation and cumulative limits, rendering sentence void | No error — court properly advised of five-year mandatory term and the maximum sanction (one-half the sentence); more detailed advisements (e.g., nine-month single-violation cap) are not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995) (limits on admissibility of prior consistent statements)
- State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997) (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest-weight standard and review)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (inconsistent jury verdicts do not necessarily imply error)
- Browning v. State, 120 Ohio St. 62 (1929) (no reversal for inconsistent verdicts on related counts)
- DeHass v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)
- State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 (1996) (trial court/ factfinder best situated to assess witness demeanor)