State v. Manley, 2017 Ohio 8271

John L. Manley was indicted for one count of Gross Sexual Imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(1)) after a jury convicted him; he was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment and appealed.
Victim (S.J.) testified that Manley entered her home uninvited, shut and locked the door, forced her hand onto his penis, grabbed her breast, corralled her, and ejaculated on the floor; she fled and later reported the incident.
Physical evidence: semen on the carpet and DNA from the victim’s neck both matched Manley.
Manley testified they had an ongoing consensual sexual relationship and that the encounter was consensual; he recorded a subsequent conversation with the victim in which he said he might have “taken it too far.”
Trial included testimony from police, a BCI DNA expert, and witnesses about the victim’s statements and demeanor; the jury credited the victim and convicted Manley.
On appeal Manley raised ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficiency of the evidence, and manifest-weight challenges.

Issue	State's Argument	Manley's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support GSI conviction	Evidence (victim testimony + DNA linking semen and neck swab to Manley) proved force and sexual contact beyond a reasonable doubt	Evidence was insufficient to prove nonconsensual conduct	Affirmed—viewed in favor of prosecution, evidence sufficient to convict
Manifest weight of the evidence	Jury properly weighed credibility and its verdict should stand	Jury lost its way; conviction against manifest weight	Affirmed—no unanimous panel found miscarriage of justice; jury credibility determinations upheld
Ineffective assistance of counsel — procedural/ evidentiary claims (rape-shield, hearsay, impeachment)	Defense had opportunity and raised these issues at trial; no showing of prejudice	Counsel misunderstood rape-shield/hearsay and failed to impeach or investigate	Affirmed—defendant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice
Ineffective assistance of counsel — failure to obtain phone/text records and test blanket for DNA	No record shows such materials existed or would have been favorable; speculation not permitted on appeal	Counsel failed to obtain records and test blanket that would have proved consensual relationship	Affirmed—court refused to speculate about nonexistent favorable evidence; no deficient performance or prejudice shown

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review; defines manifest-weight standard)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency standard: review evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (2004) (applies Jenks standard for sufficiency review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 53 (2005) (discusses ineffective-assistance standard in Ohio)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (addresses Ohio application of Strickland; either prong failure defeats claim)