State v. King
2019 Ohio 833
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- David R. King, a relative and custodian of a child (born c.2009), was indicted for two counts of rape (fellatio and cunnilingus) and one count of gross sexual imposition for conduct alleged to have occurred while the child lived in his home between 2014–2015.
- The child disclosed abuse to her foster mother after being removed from King’s home; forensic interview and physical exam (normal findings) were introduced at trial.
- Trial evidence included testimony from the victim, foster mother, forensic interviewer, medical/mental-health professionals, detectives, and child-services personnel; King testified and presented alibi/conspiracy evidence and an expert on memory.
- The jury convicted King on all counts; the trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life. King appealed, raising five assignments of error which the appellate court consolidated into four legal issues.
- The Twelfth District affirmed, rejecting challenges to exclusion of certain evidence, the child’s competency to testify, jury unanimity instructions, and claims that the verdict was unsupported or against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | King’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Exclusion of out‑of‑court and sexual‑history evidence | Excluded statements were inadmissible hearsay or barred by Ohio’s rape‑shield statutes; court properly exercised discretion. | Trial court wrongly barred evidence (mother/grandmother coaching; prior abuse by brother) that would impeach victim and show alternative source of sexual knowledge. | Affirmed: excluded material was hearsay without applicable exception or inadequately shown/probative under rape‑shield law; no abuse of discretion. |
| 2. Competency of child witness | Child demonstrated ability to observe, recall, communicate, and to distinguish truth from falsity in competency hearing. | Child did not sufficiently indicate understanding of truthfulness; admitting testimony violated due process. | Affirmed: competency finding supported by record; no abuse of discretion. |
| 3. Jury unanimity on specific incidents | Counts were tied to distinct acts (fellatio, cunnilingus, sexual contact); instruction and closing argument delineated separate acts. | Jury needed an instruction requiring unanimous agreement on the same specific incident within each count. | Affirmed: no plain error—jury was informed of distinct acts for each count; no manifest miscarriage of justice. |
| 4. Sufficiency / Manifest weight of the evidence | Victim’s testimony, corroborative investigative evidence, and reasonable inferences supported convictions. | Victim inconsistent, no physical evidence, flawed investigation, alleged false-accusation motive; verdict unreliable. | Affirmed: convictions not against manifest weight; evidence was sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (defendant’s right to present a meaningful defense is protected but not absolute)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (constitutional limits on excluding critical defense evidence)
- State v. Dever, 64 Ohio St.3d 401 (Ohio 1992) (trial court has broad discretion in hearsay admissibility)
- State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247 (Ohio 1991) (factors for determining competency of child witnesses)
- State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2010) (child under ten may be competent even without full recollection)