State v. Kent, 2013 Ohio 2461

Kent was convicted by bench trial of importuning under R.C. 2907.07 and sentenced to 11 months in prison.
T.C., age 15, met Kent on a social chat line; she initially claimed to be 18 but later admitted she was 15.
In November 2010, after meeting at a McDonald's, Kent led T.C. to a laundry room and pressured her to have sex.
T.C. testified Kent repeatedly said, 'come on' and, inside the laundry room, stated, 'we about to fuck,' despite her refusals.
T.C. notified her mother after the incident and reported it to police; Kent challenges the sufficiency of evidence and the weight of the testimony.
On appeal, the court reviews sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight of the evidence, ultimately affirming the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence	Kent argues the state failed to prove solicitation.	Kent contends the evidence does not show a solicitation as defined.	Evidence sufficient to prove solicitation beyond reasonable doubt.
Manifest weight	Weight challenges based on victim credibility; lies do not negate credibility.	T.C.’s admitted lies render her wholly unreliable.	Record supports verdict; conviction not against the manifest weight.

State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio Supreme Court 2004) (sufficiency review standard: rational trier could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio Supreme Court 1991) (reasonable-doubt standard and evidentiary review framework)
State v. Barnett, 2012-Ohio-3748 (Ohio App.3d 2012) (solicit defined to include leading, pressuring, or inviting)
State v. Jain, 2010-Ohio-1712 (Ohio App.3d 2010) (interpretation of 'solicit' in importuning statute)
State v. Moore, 2004-Ohio-5732 (Ohio App.3d 2004) (solicit defined as more than mere asking)
State v. Bowden, 2012-Ohio-92266 (8th Dist. 2009) (credibility assessment in manifest-weight review)