State v. Moore, 2022 Ohio 2349

Victim Z.M., age 16, was staying overnight at her aunt K.M.'s home where appellant Wesley Moore (a long‑time family acquaintance viewed as an "uncle") lived.
Z.M. slept on the living‑room sofa in a t‑shirt, shorts, and snug underwear; she awoke to Moore sitting nearby and later to his hand moving from her thigh to under her shorts, touching her vaginal area.
Z.M. left the room at about 3:47 a.m., waited in the bathroom for two hours, and later disclosed the incident to family; she reported the full details to police months later.
Moore was indicted for one count of gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(1)), tried by jury, and convicted; defense did not move for acquittal under Crim.R. 29 and did not request a lesser‑included instruction.
On appeal the Fifth District reversed and vacated the conviction, holding the state failed to prove the element of "force" required by R.C. 2907.05(A)(1); the court noted Moore’s conduct might have fit other statutory subsections (e.g., R.C. 2907.05(A)(5) or sexual imposition) but the state did not charge or seek amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency / force element for GSI (R.C. 2907.05(A)(1))	State: testimony of sexual contact and defendant’s apology support inference of sexual motive and that manipulation of clothing while victim was essentially asleep satisfies force given relationship	Moore: no evidence overcame victim’s will — minimal manipulation, no restraint, no relocation, victim left the room when she realized what happened	Reversed conviction: evidence insufficient to prove force/threat of force required for R.C. 2907.05(A)(1); conduct could support other offenses but not the charged statute as prosecuted
Alleged trial errors (prosecutor calling defendant an "animal"; Facebook evidence authentication; victim‑impact father testimony)	State: no reversible error (arguments/evidence admissible)	Moore: prosecutorial misconduct and unauthenticated/inadmissible evidence prejudiced trial; improper victim impact rehabilitation	Moot — district court did not reach merits because conviction was vacated for insufficiency
Fine imposed without consideration of ability to pay	State: fine proper under sentencing	Moore: court abused discretion by imposing $2,500 fine after lengthy incarceration without assessing ability to pay	Moot — rendered unnecessary by reversal of conviction

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard; whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (Ohio standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist. 1983) (manifest‑weight standard; new trial only in exceptional case)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest‑weight review)
State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56, 526 N.E.2d 304 (Ohio 1988) (force element may be subtle/psychological where defendant holds authority over minor)
State v. Dye, 82 Ohio St.3d 323, 695 N.E.2d 763 (Ohio 1998) (extended Eskridge to situations where defendant holds position of authority over minor)
State v. Cobb, 81 Ohio App.3d 185, 610 N.E.2d 1009 (Ohio App. 1991) (jury may infer sexual arousal/gratification from nature and circumstances of contact)