State v. Luce
2017 Ohio 4472
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Terry Luce was indicted for one count of endangering children (second-degree felony) after his 2–3-year-old son M.L. sustained a spiral fracture to his right femur while in Luce’s sole care.
- First responders observed M.L. in visible pain; M.L. told a paramedic and his mother immediately after the injury that “dad hurt me.”
- Lucas County Children Services investigator Brynn Burr testified about statements Luce made during the investigation, including an admission that he had handled M.L. roughly while changing his diaper.
- Pediatric expert Dr. Randall Schlievert (qualified at trial) testified that M.L.’s spiral femur fracture was inconsistent with ordinary household falls and was indicative of intentional physical abuse.
- The jury found Luce guilty; the trial court denied his Crim.R. 29 motion, sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, and ordered reimbursement of certain costs.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Luce's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency (Crim.R. 29) — recklessness element for endangering children | Medical and circumstantial evidence showed the injury required significant force and occurred while child was in Luce’s care, satisfying recklessness | Evidence left open alternative causes; state failed to prove recklessness beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed — evidence sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find recklessness |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Medical opinion, child’s statements, and custody timeline supported conviction | Conviction against weight because cause of injury was unclear | Affirmed — not an exceptional case to reverse on weight grounds |
| Admissibility of child’s statements (hearsay/excited utterance) | Child’s statements were spontaneous, made shortly after injury, admissible under Evid.R. 803(2) | Statements were hearsay and inadmissible | Affirmed — statements admissible as excited utterances; any other reference harmless |
| LCCS caseworker opinion testimony (impermissible lay opinion) | Burr’s investigative observations were admissible; her opinion not outcome-determinative | Burr, not an expert, improperly opined that abuse occurred and that Luce was perpetrator | Trial error but harmless — testimony improperly admitted under Evid.R. 701 but did not affect outcome |
| Expert disclosure (Crim.R. 16[K]) — Schlievert’s report | Expert testimony was based on personal exam/records; materials were disclosed in discovery; no prejudice | Failure to provide compliant written report should preclude expert testimony | No plain error — testimony admissible; no manifest miscarriage of justice |
| Imposition of confinement and appointed counsel costs | Record showed ability to pay (work history, part-time employment), court made required finding | Record insufficient to support ability-to-pay finding | Affirmed — sentencing entry and record supported court’s finding |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 (excited utterance four-part test)
- State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (permitting non-coercive questioning of a child declarant for excited utterance)
- State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (manifest-weight standard)
- State v. Bayless, 48 Ohio St.2d 73 (harmless-error standard)