State v. Jordan, 237 N.E.3d 58

Joel Jordan was night supervisor at the Samuel Bell Home for the Sightless for ~13 months; residents must be legally blind.
S.W., a resident with no vision in one eye, limited vision in the other, and unspecified developmental disabilities, alleged Jordan touched her sexually during a March 6, 2019 encounter in his apartment.
The parties stipulated at trial, based on a psychologist’s report, that S.W. lacked the capacity to consent to sexual activity.
A jury convicted Jordan of two misdemeanor counts of sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.06(A)(1) and (A)(2)); the trial court merged counts and sentenced on (A)(2).
The First District reversed the (A)(2) conviction, holding the state presented insufficient evidence that Jordan knew S.W. was substantially impaired and that blindness, by itself, does not necessarily constitute substantial impairment.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the state’s appeal, held blindness can constitute substantial impairment in context, and concluded the record contained sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to infer Jordan knew S.W. was substantially impaired; it reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jordan)	Held
Whether blindness can constitute a "substantial impairment" under R.C. 2907.06(A)(2)	Blindness can limit a person’s ability to defend against sexual assault and thus can be a substantial impairment, especially where capacity to consent is absent	Blindness alone does not necessarily impair ability to appraise or control another’s conduct; court of appeals argued no causal nexus shown here	The Court: Blindness can constitute substantial impairment (case-by-case); here, S.W.’s blindness plus lack of capacity supported substantial impairment
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Jordan knew S.W. was substantially impaired	Knowledge can be proved circumstantially; Jordan worked at a blind-residents facility, had prolonged contact with S.W., made comments/taken actions indicating he perceived her disabilities	Insufficient proof that Jordan knew S.W. was substantially impaired; interactions were limited and facility was independent-living	The Court: Sufficient circumstantial evidence existed for a rational juror to infer Jordan knew S.W. was substantially impaired; conviction reinstated

State v. Groce, 163 Ohio St.3d 387 (Ohio 2020) (de novo review on sufficiency challenges)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency of the evidence from manifest-weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find elements proved)
Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (circumstantial evidence may support reasonable inferences)
McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (U.S. 2015) (knowledge can be proven circumstantially)
Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (U.S. 2009) (observing difficulty of proving subjective knowledge)
State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339 (Ohio 2014) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State ex rel. MORE Bratenahl v. Bratenahl, 157 Ohio St.3d 309 (Ohio 2019) (afford undefined statutory terms their ordinary meaning)