State v. Mathes
2013 Ohio 1732
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant James Mathes was indicted in Clermont County for rape, unlawful restraint, kidnapping, and tampering with evidence relating to an incident on June 4, 2010.
- Victim A.C., age 14, testified Mathes forcibly restrained and digitally penetrated her on Mathes' couch for several minutes.
- DNA testing linked A.C.'s DNA to nail scrapings from Mathes, suggesting contact; defense denied assault.
- Jury found Mathes guilty of rape, kidnapping, and unlawful restraint, but not guilty of tampering with evidence; court treated counts as allied offenses and sentenced on rape (Tier III sex offender designation, five-year term).
- Mathes appealed, raising two issues: exclusion of prior inconsistent statements of A.C. and admission of testimony that Mathes requested an attorney during a police interview.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior inconsistent statements | State argues statements admissible under Evid.R. 613(B) if foundation laid. | Mathes contends statements should have been admitted to impeach credibility. | Court held exclusion appropriate; no abuse of discretion. |
| Effect of Mathes' request for an attorney during interview | State asserts any error was harmless given strong evidence of guilt. | Mathes claims it violated due process and warranted mistrial. | Court found any error harmless; conviction upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jackson, 2011-Ohio-5593 (12th Dist. No. CA2011-01-001 (Ohio)) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (2006) (abuse of discretion and evidentiary review standards)
- State v. Lewis, 2011-Ohio-415 (12th Dist. CA2010-08-017 (Ohio)) (foundation for admitting prior inconsistent statements)
- State v. Hartman, 1999 WL 188145 ((Apr. 5, 1999)) (rejected when witness admits prior statement; extrinsic evidence generally inadmissible)
- State v. Kulasa, 2012-Ohio-6021 (10th Dist. (Ohio)) (Extends limitations on extrinsic evidence for prior inconsistent statements)
- State v. Graven, 52 Ohio St.2d 112 (1977) (evidence admissibility rules governing trial records)
- State v. Lang, 2011-Ohio-4215 (Ohio Sup. Ct. (2011)) (plain-error and harmless-error standards in appellate review)