State v. Keck
2011 Ohio 1643
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Daniel Keck II was convicted by a jury in Washington County on multiple counts of sexual offenses involving underage boys, based on acts spanning years including trips to Morrow County and Honduras.
- The crimes involved use of Keck’s home and property, and included videotaped and photographed sexual material; forfeiture was sought and granted for his home, computer, and a camera.
- AEP employee Keck mentored boys through a church-affiliated organization; testimony described grooming behaviors and varied sexual activities with victims, some occurring out of county and abroad.
- The State introduced DNA evidence linking semen to Keck; Slaper testified to testing and cross-examined by defense, while Losko did not testify.
- Keck was adjudicated a Tier III sex offender and sentenced to multiple consecutive terms totaling 71 years; the trial court also dismissed some counts and merged others for purposes of sentencing.
- On appeal, Keck challenges evidentiary confrontation rights, consecutive sentencing, forfeiture as an excessive fine, sufficiency and weight of the kidnapping convictions, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation rights and DNA evidence | Keck argues Losko's non-testimony violated confrontation rights; Slaper relied on Losko’s data to form conclusions. | Keck contends Melendez-Diaz/Crager require cross-examination of the analyst or exclusion of certificates. | No confrontation violation; Slaper testified and cross-examined; Melendez-Diaz distinguishable; DNA nexus supported by trial testimony. |
| Consecutive sentencing under statute | State asserts post-Foster/ Ice framework permits consecutive sentences without additional findings. | Keck argues lack of statutory findings under new RC 2929.14(E)(4) requires reversal. | Consecutive sentences upheld; proper considerations and statutory framework satisfied. |
| Forfeiture as excessive fine | State contends forfeiture of home aligns with proportionality and victim harm, with value far below potential fines. | Keck claims forfeiture is grossly disproportionate to offenses. | Not grossly disproportionate; proportionality balanced against offenses, victim harm, and absence of fines. |
| Sufficiency of kidnapping convictions | Evidence supported that Keck took J.D. on trips to Honduras and Morrow County to engage in rape. | Keck argues insufficient proof of purpose or use of coercion via kidnapping. | Sufficient evidence to support two kidnapping convictions under RC 2905.01(A)(2). |
| Manifest weight of kidnapping convictions | Evidence corroborates grooming and sexual activity; multiple witnesses and materials bolster credibility of allegations. | Denials and defense witnesses create reasonable disbelief; weight of evidence disputes conviction. | Not against the manifest weight; jury credibility determinations supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2009) (DNA/certificates as testimonial affidavits; confrontation impact)
- State v. Crager, 123 Ohio St.3d 1210 (2009) (DNA analysis deemed non-testimonial business record when supporting testimony exists)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (Consecutive sentencing framework; discretionary review changes post-Foster)
- U.S. v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2007) (No Confrontation Clause violation when raw data is admitted and tested by another analyst)