State v. Jordan
2017 Ohio 381
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Charles V. Jordan lived with the victim (C.D.) and her mother from C.D.’s early childhood; Jordan functioned as a father figure and provided support.
- C.D. testified Jordan began sexually touching her at age 10, anally penetrating her at 12, and vaginally penetrating her at 14; he allegedly isolated her, threatened consequences if she told, and made her clean or punished her when she resisted.
- Jordan was indicted on 35 counts (rape, sexual battery, kidnapping, intimidation, plus specifications); he elected to have certain specifications (sexual-motivation) decided by the judge rather than a jury.
- A jury convicted Jordan of four counts: rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)), sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(5)), and two kidnapping counts (R.C. 2905.01(A)(2) and (A)(4)), plus related specifications; court merged counts and imposed concurrent nine-year sentences and Tier III sex-offender classification.
- On appeal Jordan challenged (1) sufficiency and manifest weight of evidence, (2) trial court’s acceptance of bench determination of sexual-motivation specifications without a written jury-waiver under R.C. 2945.05, and (3) whether rape and kidnapping are allied offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | State: Victim’s testimony, recordings, and evidence of in loco parentis support convictions | Jordan: Lack of physical injuries or corroboration negates sufficiency | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational trier of fact could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: Credible testimony and conduct (isolation, threats, recording) support verdict | Jordan: Inconsistent/no physical corroboration means jury lost its way | Affirmed — credibility and weight for jury; victim testimony sufficient if believed |
| Jury-waiver statutory requirements for bench determination of specifications | State: Court may hear specifications when defendant requests judge decide them | Jordan: R.C. 2945.05 required a written, in-court jury waiver for trying specifications to the judge | Affirmed — R.C. 2945.05 does not apply to specifications; bench determination was permissible (per precedent) |
| Whether rape and kidnapping are allied offenses of similar import | State: Kidnapping (removal/restraint) and rape caused separate harms and had separate animus (isolate then assault) | Jordan: Rape and kidnapping arise from same conduct and should merge as allied offenses | Affirmed — offenses are not allied: separate harm, separate acts (removal prior to rape), and separate animus |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Leonard, 818 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio 2004) (standards for sufficiency and weight review)
- State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (definition of manifest-weight review)
- State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (test for allied offenses of similar import)
- State v. Pless, 658 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio 1996) (strict compliance required for jury-waiver under R.C. 2945.05 generally)
- State v. Nagel, 703 N.E.2d 773 (Ohio 1999) (R.C. 2945.05 does not apply to specifications; judge may decide specifications)