State v. Marquand, 2014 Ohio 698

Marquand was indicted in December 2012 on five counts: attempted rape of a girl under 13, attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (ages 13–16 and offender more than 10 years older), possessing criminal tools, and two counts of attempted kidnapping; all counts carried forfeiture provisions.
Investigator McGinnis investigated ads and undercover chats, including a Craigslist post seeking younger girls and a tailored undercover persona; the interactions progressed to discussions about meeting for sex and explicit comments.
Marquand expressed no age limits, requested photos of the supposed underage girls, and discussed hosting at a Cleveland hotel; he eventually traveled from Michigan to Ohio for a meeting.
After meeting, Marquand was arrested at the hotel; police recovered items including two thongs, a phone, and a laptop; devices showed online activity with youth-oriented dating sites and potential child-pornography content.
Evidence at trial included admissions and digital evidence; the jury found Marquand guilty of attempted rape (under 13) and attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (13–16), and guilty of possessing criminal tools, but not guilty of two kidnapping counts.
The trial court sentenced Marquand to concurrent terms totaling five years, plus post-release control and sex-offender classifications; Marquand appeals challenging weight of the evidence, jury instruction on a lesser included offense, and admission of other-acts evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the conviction for attempted rape against the manifest weight of the evidence?	Marquand argues entrapment biased the verdict.	Marquand contends he was predisposed; police planted the idea.	No; verdict not against the manifest weight.
Should the jury have been instructed on the lesser included offense of attempted importuning?	Marquand asserts importuning should have been charged.	Trial court properly refused; not a lesser included offense.	No; not a lesser included offense given the charged conduct.
Was admission of extensive other-acts evidence improper under Evid.R. 404(B)?	Evidence of online activity and child pornography items relevant to intent and lack of entrapment.	Evidence was prejudicial and not appropriately probative.	No abuse of discretion; probative value outweighed by prejudice, harmless error.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (establishes manifest-weight standard and thirteenth juror concept)
State v. Evans, 122 Ohio St.3d 381 (2009) (Evans test for lesser-included offenses (Deem/Deandra framework))
State v. Deandra, 136 Ohio St.3d 18 (2013) (defines Evans test and element-based analysis for LCIs)
State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (2012) (three-step Williams test for admissibility of other-acts evidence)
State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213 (1988) (limits on when lesser-included instruction warranted)
State v. Doran, 5 Ohio St.3d 187 (1983) (definition of entrapment (official inducement vs predisposition))
State v. Jain, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-09-25 (2010) (explains meaning of solicit within importuning (non-official reporter))