State v. Loudermilk, 2017 Ohio 7378

Defendant Michael Loudermilk was charged under R.C. 2907.09(A)(1) with public indecency for exposing his penis through a first-floor window as 16-year-old A.M. walked on the sidewalk across the street.
A.M. testified she heard a knocking sound, turned, and saw Loudermilk pull down his shorts and expose himself; Loudermilk testified A.M. had been staring at him through a (allegedly tinted) window.
A jury convicted Loudermilk; the court sentenced him to a suspended 90-day jail term and one year of community control with electronic monitoring for 60 days.
On appeal Loudermilk raised four issues: insufficiency/manifest-weight of the evidence (physical proximity), exclusion of impeachment photographs and investigator testimony, admission of unsworn testimony, and judicial bias.
The court construed “physical proximity” to mean the victim was near enough to observe the offender’s private parts, rejected the sufficiency/weight challenges, found exclusion of undisclosed impeachment photos was error but harmless, found exclusion of limited investigator testimony and admission of unsworn testimony harmless, and rejected the judicial-bias claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Loudermilk)	Held
Sufficiency / physical proximity under R.C. 2907.09(A)(1)	Evidence established A.M. was near enough to view the exposure	A.M. was across the street and windows were tinted, so not in physical proximity; witness credibility challenged	"Physical proximity" means victim is near enough to observe private parts; evidence sufficient and weight challenge fails
Exclusion of impeachment photographs	Exclusion was proper for nondisclosure	Photos were only for impeachment and need not be disclosed; exclusion improper	Exclusion for nondisclosure was improper, but error was harmless because wife testified to same physical details
Exclusion of investigator testimony/photograph details	Limiting testimony was proper (conditions differed; confusing)	Exclusion of which window investigator used impaired defense demonstration	Testimony and photograph largely admitted; exclusion of the specific window detail harmless
Judicial bias / fair trial	Trial judge’s comments and rulings did not deny due process	Judge’s conduct showed favoritism and denied fair trial	Appellate court may review bias claims affecting due process; no hostile favoritism found; claim denied

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (describing sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (jury as factfinder for witness credibility)
State v. Palmer, 112 Ohio St.3d 457 (purpose of discovery rules to prevent surprise)
State v. Mack, 73 Ohio St.3d 502 (harmlessness of erroneous exclusion where other credible evidence exists)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (plain-error harmlessness standard)
State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (forfeiture of bias claims not raised timely)
State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463 (definition of judicial bias)
In re Disqualification of Zmuda, 149 Ohio St.3d 1241 (Supreme Court discussion of disqualification avenues)