State v. Miller
2016 Ohio 8248
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Nancy L. Miller (defendant) was convicted after a jury trial in Perry County for one count of sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(5)) involving her adopted minor son, P.M.; she was sentenced to 42 months' imprisonment and classified a Tier III sex offender.
- Multiple family members (adoptive and natural children, husband) testified about observing inappropriate affection, admissions by Miller that she and P.M. had sex multiple times in May 2015, and her statements describing the relationship like a "love story." P.M. testified Miller forced him by threats beginning in late March 2015.
- Miller asserted at trial that P.M. had sexually assaulted others and that P.M. had sexually assaulted her (claiming he forced her); she sought to introduce evidence of P.M.’s prior acts and to call his counselor as a witness.
- The trial court excluded certain 404(B) "other acts" evidence (alleged assaults by P.M. on siblings/grandchildren, underwear/twine evidence) as more prejudicial and confusing than probative, and denied compelled testimony from counselor Luke Sargent on privilege/waiver grounds.
- The indictment dates were amended at trial to conform to testimony (March–May 2015); Miller moved unsuccessfully for acquittal and for a new trial; she appealed raising multiple assignments of error (404(B) exclusion, counselor testimony, sufficiency/weight, amendment, jury instructions, sentencing, cumulative error).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Miller's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of 404(B) evidence about alleged acts by P.M. | Exclusion proper because the proffered evidence was speculative, confusing, highly prejudicial and of little probative value. | Evidence showed P.M.’s propensity for sexual misconduct (impeaching consent/establishing victim’s intent); admissible under Evid. R. 404(B). | Court: No abuse of discretion; excluded as more prejudicial and confusing than probative under Evid. R. 403/404(B). |
| Compelled testimony from counselor (privilege/waiver) | Counselor not compelled because the minor did not voluntarily testify about counseling content; waiver by agency expired. | Miller argued P.M.’s testimony about counseling waived privilege so counselor should testify. | Court: P.M. did not voluntarily testify as to counseling substance; privilege not waived; counselor testimony excluded. |
| Sufficiency and manifest weight of evidence to sustain conviction | Evidence (admissions to daughters, P.M.’s testimony that acts were forced, corroborating witness accounts) sufficed to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt. | Miller argued conviction unsupported and against manifest weight given inconsistencies and alternative explanations. | Court: Evidence sufficient and conviction not against manifest weight; trier of fact resolved credibility. |
| Amendment of indictment dates after State rested | Amendment simply cured variance between indictment and testimony without changing the crime’s identity; permissible under Crim. R. 7(D). | Amendment changed nature of the charge and prejudiced Miller’s defense. | Court: Amendment permissible; did not alter identity or elements of the offense. |
| Jury instructions / refusal of defense-requested special instructions | Standard jury instructions adequately covered credibility and law; requested instructions were argument, not necessary statements of law. | Miller sought specific instructions on victim credibility, investigation sufficiency, and intent which she claimed were required. | Court: No abuse of discretion; refused requested instructions because they were argumentative/not legally required. |
| Sentence (42 months) | Sentence within statutory range; trial court considered required factors and did not err. | Sentence excessive and unsupported by the record. | Court: Sentence affirmed; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest weight standards)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Adams, 53 Ohio St.2d 223 (1978) (verdicts on different counts need not be consistent)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Williams, 21 Ohio St.3d 33 (1986) (balancing victim-protection statutes with defendant's confrontation rights when admitting prior act evidence)