State v. Jordan, 2022 Ohio 1512

Joel Jordan, a night supervisor living at the Samuel Bell House (a residential independent-living facility for legally blind adults), was accused of sexual conduct with resident S.W.
S.W. is legally blind with limited vision and, by stipulation, was found by a psychologist to lack capacity to consent to sexual activity.
Surveillance and testimony showed Jordan brought S.W. to his apartment, asked her to undress, touched her breast and genitals, instructed her about masturbation, and told her it was a "little secret." S.W. testified she felt uncomfortable and told her father after.
Jordan denied sexual contact; he said interactions were limited to serving food and expressing concern about her weight and hygiene.
A jury convicted Jordan of two counts of sexual imposition; the court merged the R.C. 2907.06(A)(1) count into the R.C. 2907.06(A)(2) count and imposed a 60-day sentence.
On appeal the court reversed and discharged the A(2) conviction for insufficient evidence that Jordan knew S.W.’s ability to appraise or control was substantially impaired; a separate appeal concerning the merged A(1) count was dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order and remanded for sentencing/entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — knowledge element for R.C. 2907.06(A)(2) (did defendant know victim was substantially impaired?)	State: stipulation that victim lacked consent capacity plus Jordan’s relationship, his awareness of her blindness/hygiene, and the circumstances support an inference he knew of impairment.	Jordan: no evidence he knew of her cognitive impairment; blindness or hygiene alone do not prove he knew her ability to appraise/control was substantially impaired.	Reversed conviction and discharged — evidence insufficient to prove Jordan knew of victim’s substantial impairment.
Jury-instruction adequacy on A(2)	State: (argued jury was properly instructed)	Jordan: trial court failed to properly instruct jury on A(2) elements.	Declined as moot after reversal on sufficiency.
Manifest-weight challenge to A(2) conviction	State: conviction supported by evidence and inferences	Jordan: conviction against manifest weight	Moot after sufficiency reversal.
Jurisdiction / final order for merged A(1) count (appeal C-210199)	State: sentencing/merger was proper	Jordan: appealed but no final appealable order was entered for the merged count	Appeal C-210199 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; remanded for sentencing and entry of a final order.

State v. Dent, 163 Ohio St.3d 390, 170 N.E.3d 816 (de novo review standard for sufficiency challenges)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (standard for reviewing sufficiency and related guidance)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (jury sufficiency instruction on proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Zeh, 31 Ohio St.3d 99, 509 N.E.2d 414 (definition of "substantial impairment" under sexual-offense statutes)
Parrish v. Jones, 138 Ohio St.3d 23, 3 N.E.3d 155 (opening statements are not evidence)
State v. Elmore, 122 Ohio St.3d 472, 912 N.E.2d 582 (rule of lenity and construing criminal statutes to clearly proscribe conduct)
United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (statutory clarity principle cited for interpreting criminal statutes)