State v. Lauf
2017 Ohio 608
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Trenton Lauf was tried by jury and convicted of one count of Rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)) and one count of Illegal Use of a Minor in Nudity-Oriented Material (R.C. 2907.323(A)(2)); a serious-physical-harm specification to the rape charge was dismissed by the trial court.
- Victim K.J., born January 2003, testified about multiple incidents of forced oral sex when she was about 10–11 years old and that Lauf photographed her partially nude; some photos were found on Lauf’s phone.
- Two forensic interviews of K.J. by a children’s-services worker were videotaped and played for the jury; defense counsel did not object to the first interview and did object to the second.
- Defense theory emphasized delay in reporting, potential fabrication after the parents’ divorce, and challenged whether the photos were taken by Lauf.
- Trial resulted in consecutive terms (25 years to life for rape, 8 years for illegal use of a minor). Lauf appealed, arguing (1) admission of the videotaped interviews was improper hearsay/prior-consistent statements, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) insufficiency/manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Lauf's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of videotaped forensic interviews (Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(b)) | Videos are admissible as prior consistent statements to rebut implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive; helpful for jury to judge child-victim credibility | Videos were hearsay and not admissible under 801(D)(1)(b); denial of charges alone does not equal a charge of fabrication | Court affirmed admission (first video not objected to; second, though objected to, was cumulative/harmless) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | Victim’s testimony (if believed) plus photographs on defendant’s phone suffice; single witness testimony can support conviction | Victim’s testimony was uncorroborated and not credible; insufficient as a matter of law | Court held evidence sufficient; convictions upheld |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Jury properly credited victim; corroborating details (photos, mother’s throat spray) supported credibility | Verdict against manifest weight due to delay, inconsistencies, lack of forensic corroboration | Court held verdict was not against manifest weight; no miscarriage of justice |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to video play and certain questions | Counsel’s tactical choices were reasonable; defense did object to second video; no prejudice shown | Counsel deficient for not objecting to interviews and prosecutor’s questioning; deprivation of effective assistance | Court applied Strickland standard and found no prejudice; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency review from manifest-weight review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard for reviewing criminal convictions)
- Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1995) (prior consistent-statement rule limited to rebutting a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 (Ohio 2014) (plain-error review for unpreserved evidentiary objections)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (standard for demonstrating prejudice under plain-error review)