State v. McDowell
2017 Ohio 9249
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In October 2014, HB (16) reported that defendant Kyle McDowell (17) raped her; medical exam recorded bruising consistent with rough sexual activity. Criminal charges (rape, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping) were later filed after juvenile proceedings.
- The Juvenile Division held a probable-cause and amenability hearing and, in February 2016, transferred the case to the General Division under R.C. 2152.10/2152.12 (discretionary bindover).
- At trial (Nov. 2016) the jury convicted McDowell on all counts; he appealed raising four assignments of error challenging (1) the juvenile transfer, (2) exclusion of evidence about the victim’s prior sexual activity/possible source of bruising, (3) trial testimony revealing the defendant declined to speak to police, and (4) exclusion of extrinsic evidence impeaching the victim’s motive to lie.
- Key evidentiary disputes: defense sought testimony from the victim’s prior boyfriend (Isaac) about recent rough sex and bruising, and proposed extrinsic witnesses to show the victim feared her mother’s discipline; the court excluded portions for lack of foundation and as precluded/limited by relevancy and the rape-shield framework.
- At trial the prosecutor asked an investigating detective whether he had tried to determine if McDowell had a mobility injury; the detective answered that he had attempted to talk to McDowell but he “opted not to.” The court denied a mistrial but gave a curative instruction about the right to remain silent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McDowell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Juvenile court’s discretionary transfer/bindover | Transfer was proper because statutory factors (victim harm, relationship, offender maturity, insufficient time for rehabilitation) justified adult prosecution. | Bindover was improper: juvenile court misapplied statutory factors, ignored diagnostic report, delayed transfer, violated speedy-trial and due-process rights. | Affirmed: juvenile court considered R.C. 2152.12 factors and did not abuse discretion in ordering transfer. |
| 2. Exclusion of testimony that prior boyfriend had rough sex <24 hrs before and caused bruising (rape‑shield / relevancy / confrontation) | Exclusion appropriate under rape‑shield and because defense failed to lay foundation and the questions were overbroad; evidence was legally irrelevant as offered. | Evidence was admissible to show alternative source of bruises and relevant to innocence; exclusion violated confrontation rights. | Affirmed: trial court properly excluded testimony for lack of foundation (not a rape‑shield exclusion as applied) and did not abuse discretion. |
| 3. Prosecution eliciting testimony that defendant declined to speak to police (Fifth Amendment) | Prosecutor’s question was legitimate fact inquiry about investigation steps; detective’s answer was not intended to show silence as substantive evidence. | The question improperly revealed McDowell’s invocation of Fifth Amendment rights, warranting mistrial/new trial. | Affirmed: any error was harmless; context did not seek to prove guilt from silence and court’s curative instruction was sufficient. |
| 4. Exclusion of extrinsic evidence (Evid.R. 616) showing victim’s motive to lie (fear of mother’s discipline) | Much proffered extrinsic testimony was too remote, collateral, or lacked foundation and thus irrelevant; trial court allowed limited inquiry where relevant. | Evidence was admissible impeachment showing bias/motive to fabricate and trial court abused discretion in excluding it. | Affirmed: trial court reasonably excluded remote or unsupported extrinsic evidence; allowed limited relevant questioning; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Leach, 102 Ohio St.3d 135 (Ohio 2004) (introduction of defendant’s silence in state’s case‑in‑chief cannot be used as substantive evidence of guilt)
- State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (Ohio 2000) (curative instructions are presumed followed; single officer comment about silence can be harmless)
- In re A.J.S., 120 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 2008) (challenges to juvenile bindover amenability findings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 2002) (trial court may exclude testimony that is too remote or essentially misleading as not relevant)