State v. Marques
2019 Ohio 42
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Nov. 7, 2015: Victim (T.D.P.) walked by defendant Marques' house, invited him to share wine; they went inside via back door. Marques produced a large knife and, according to the victim, knocked her down, held her, and attempted to pull down her pants.
- Victim struggled, called 911, lost phone to Marques, then blacked out; when she regained consciousness she was in the backyard with her pants unfastened and underwear around her thighs and later smelled what she believed was semen.
- Victim delayed reporting until the next day; a sexual-assault nurse collected vaginal, anal, fingernail swabs and underwear; bruises/scrapes consistent with a struggle were documented.
- Laboratory testing: semen present on underwear cuttings; male DNA on vaginal swab (too low for profile); defendant’s DNA matched semen on underwear and fingernail material.
- Indictment: kidnapping with sexual-motivation specification and two counts of rape (force/threat and impaired ability to consent). Jury convicted on all counts; convictions merged for sentencing and defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping (restraint for sexual activity) | State: Victim’s testimony that defendant restrained her plus DNA linking defendant to semen supports kidnapping with sexual motivation | Marques: did not contest kidnapping facts on appeal | Conviction affirmed — testimony of assault/restraint and DNA sufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for rape by vaginal intercourse (force) | State: circumstantial evidence (victim’s account of attempted forced intercourse, pants/unclasped underwear, semen on underwear matching defendant, male DNA on vaginal swab) supports penetration and force | Marques: argued state failed to prove actual vaginal penetration | Conviction affirmed — circumstantial evidence sufficient to permit reasonable inference of penetration and force |
| Manifest weight challenge for kidnapping | State: evidence consistent and uncontradicted | Marques: asserted verdicts were against manifest weight | Court: not an exceptional case; convictions not against manifest weight |
| Manifest weight challenge for rape | State: physical injuries, underwear/semen evidence, and circumstances support verdict | Marques: argued no proof of penetration or that jury lost its way | Court: jury did not lose its way; circumstantial evidence credible and supportive; convictions not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
- Jenks v. State, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review; equivalence of circumstantial and direct evidence)
- Nicely v. State, 39 Ohio St.3d 147 (Ohio 1988) (convictions may be based on circumstantial evidence)
- Treesh v. State, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (Ohio 2001) (verdict will not be disturbed unless reasonable minds could not reach it)
- Yarborough v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 2002) (appellate review does not resolve witness credibility in sufficiency review)
- Martin v. Ohio, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (manifest-weight standard and new-trial discretionary power)
- Woullard v. State, 158 Ohio App.3d 31 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (manifest-weight review does not construe evidence most strongly for prosecution)