State v. McCary, 2019 Ohio 4596

Victim (G.F.), a 23-year-old shelter resident, met McCary at a soup kitchen and spent the day with him; she accepted his offer to stay overnight because her phone was dead and shelter curfew would otherwise exclude her.
At McCary’s sparsely furnished apartment G.F. showered, sat on the floor to rest, and testified she fell asleep; she later awoke to McCary performing cunnilingus and found her legs spread; McCary told her he had been unable to penetrate her.
G.F. immediately left, called 911, was examined by a sexual-assault nurse (who found a neck bruise/hickey and a genital tear), and a forensic DNA analyst matched DNA from G.F.’s neck and inner labia to McCary.
In a recorded police interview McCary admitted being affectionate, acknowledged performing oral sex while he thought she was asleep, denied penetration, and consented to a buccal swab and apartment search.
A jury convicted McCary of one count of third-degree felony sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(3)); he was sentenced to 36 months and appealed, raising (1) manifest-weight challenge and (2) objection to an "ignorance of the law" jury instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: Victim’s consistent testimony, forensic findings, and McCary’s admissions support the verdict.	McCary: Victim facilitated contact or pretended to be asleep; jury should have credited his version.	Affirmed. Jury credibility determinations were reasonable; record does not show a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Whether jury instruction that "ignorance of the law is not a defense" improperly foreclosed a mistake-of-fact defense	State: Instruction correctly states law and does not negate defendant’s ability to argue he lacked mens rea about victim’s awareness.	McCary: Instruction confused jurors and undermined his defense that he mistakenly believed victim was awake (mistake of fact).	Affirmed. Instruction was legally correct and did not preclude a mistake-of-fact defense; no prejudice shown.

Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review and deference to factfinder)
Thompkins v. Ohio, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (discussing manifest-miscarriage-of-justice standard)
Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (standard for reversing on manifest weight)
Brewer, 903 N.E.2d 284 (Ohio 2009) (appellate courts must consider all evidence admitted at trial in weight review)
Williford, 551 N.E.2d 1279 (Ohio 1990) (trial court must instruct on issues raised by the evidence)
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1991) (general rule: ignorance of law is no defense)
Becker v. Lake County Memorial Hospital West, 560 N.E.2d 165 (Ohio 1990) (review instructions as a whole and assess prejudice)
Hayward v. Summa Health Sys., 11 N.E.3d 243 (Ohio 2014) (prejudice standard for erroneous jury instructions)