State v. Keeley
2012 Ohio 3564
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- State v. Keeley, 2012-Ohio-3564, Washington County Court of Appeals, Fourth District; judgment of conviction and sentence affirmed on appeal.
- Keeley was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape (R.C. 2902.02(A)(1)(c)&(B)) and three counts of Gross Sexual Imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(5)&(B)).
- The victim, R.D., is a minor with mental retardation; the Defense and Prosecution presented conflicting testimony about her cognitive/emotional age.
- Evidence included a rape kit with semen detected on vaginal swabs and a nurse’s testimony of prior medical examination; Keeley admitted some sexual contact but denied penile penetration.
- Trial focused on whether R.D. possessed substantial impairment to consent and on the credibility of competing accounts; the jury returned guilty verdicts and the court imposed multi-count sentences with some concurrent and some consecutive terms.
- The court rejected Keeley’s weight-of-the-evidence challenge, admitted lay testimony on cognitive understanding, and found no plain error in closing arguments or ineffective assistance of counsel arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence regarding substantial impairment of consent | Keeley argues RD lacked substantial impairment to consent | Keeley argues evidence does not support lack of capacity to consent | Verdicts not against weight of the evidence; substantial impairment found |
| Whether lay witness testimony on RD’s understanding of sexual matters was proper | Keeley challenges lay testimony as improper expert substitution | Keeley contends lay witness can testify to RD’s understanding | Lay testimony permitted; not required to be expert evidence |
| Whether prosecutorial closing remarks deprived Keeley of a fair trial due to credibility arguments | Keeley alleges improper comments on credibility | Keeley argues comments were overemphasized but not outcome-determinative | No plain error; evidence weighed against prejudice; not outcome-determinative |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the closing remarks | Keeley claims ineffective assistance per Strickland | Keeley’s counsel tactically chose not to object to avoid drawing attention | Ineffectiveness not shown; cannot demonstrate outcome would have differed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Earle, 120 Ohio App.3d 457 (Ohio App. 1997) (manifest weight review framework for credibility and impairment evidence)
- State v. Garrow, 103 Ohio App.3d 368 (Ohio App. 1995) (weight of evidence considerations in sexual-offense cases)
- State v. Frazier, State v. Dye (Ohio St. 1998) (expert testimony vs. lay testimony on cognitive ability)
- State v. Colquitt, 188 Ohio App.3d 509 (Ohio App. 2010) (assessment of substantial impairment and consent in sexual offenses)
- State v. McGlothin, 2007-Ohio-4707 (Ohio App. 2007) (prosecutorial misconduct and plain error considerations)