State v. Jordan
2016 Ohio 603
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant McKenna Jordan, who had been a father-figure to the minor victim (“Alice”), was indicted on five counts of sexual battery and later an added count of rape; jury convicted him of three sexual-battery counts and rape and the court sentenced him to seven years.
- Alice testified that Jordan began abusing her at age 13 through July 2012, including vaginal and anal intercourse and an incident where she was tied to a bed while her younger brother Ian observed.
- Evidence included BCI serology showing high amylase on Alice’s bra (opinion that it was saliva) and partial DNA profiles on shorts, underwear, and bra consistent with Jordan; DNA on bra cups was attributed primarily to Jordan.
- Defense challenged serology timing (expert testified that amylase unlikely after long delay), suggested possible contamination during later inspection, and presented a DNA expert who did not dispute the match but questioned timing/interpretation.
- At trial the court admitted testimony about Jordan’s prior violent acts against Alice’s mother and brother under Evid.R. 404(B) for the rape force element; an eight-year-old brother Ian testified after an in-camera competency hearing.
- On appeal Jordan raised five assignments: improper admission of other-acts evidence (404(B)); error in jury instruction on force; error finding Ian competent; ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) | State: prior violence toward family members was admissible and relevant to prove the rape element of force/threat | Jordan: prior acts unrelated to the specific force (tying to bed); admission was unfairly prejudicial | Admitted. Court found evidence relevant to psychological/physical force and limiting instruction mitigated prejudice; no abuse of discretion |
| Jury instruction on force (Eskridge instruction) | State: instruction on psychological/subtle force appropriate given victim–stepparent relationship and teenage victim | Jordan: Eskridge-style instruction improper because victim was older and bill of particulars alleged tying to bed as force | Proper. Court held Eskridge instruction appropriate; psychological force evidence is relevant for teen victims but must be supported by some physical force evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Competency of eight-year-old witness (Ian) | State: trial court properly conducted voir dire under Frazier factors and found child competent to testify | Jordan: child lacked reliable recollection and showed inconsistencies; competency hearing inadequate | Proper. Court reviewed voir dire, exhibits, and in-court demeanor; found no abuse of discretion in competency determination |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | State: trial counsel conducted reasonable strategic choices, cross-examined experts, and presented contrary expert testimony | Jordan: counsel failed to challenge serology opinion, did not call a promised witness, and did not object to DNA evidence for contamination | Not ineffective. Court applied Strickland standard and found defense challenged serology, presented experts, and contamination challenges go to weight not admissibility; no deficient performance shown |
| Cumulative error | N/A | Jordan: combined errors deprived him of a fair trial | Rejected. Because no reversible errors individually, cumulative-error doctrine did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 (1988) (psychological or subtle force can satisfy rape force element when victim’s will is overcome by fear)
- State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247 (1991) (factors and duty of trial judge to determine competency of child witness under ten)
- State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 (2014) (standard of review and admissibility principles for Evid.R. 404(B) and limiting instruction practice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Gross, 97 Ohio St.3d 121 (2002) (issues of chain of custody and contamination generally affect weight, not admissibility, of forensic evidence)
- State v. Richey, 64 Ohio St.3d 353 (1992) (same principle that potential contamination goes to weight, not admissibility)