State v. Murrell
2012 Ohio 2108
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- 11-year-old E.K. accused Murrell of sexual activity in basement at his home; the encounter was witnessed by E.K.’s brother, T.K.
- T.K. observed Murrell’s mouth on E.K.’s groin; E.K. later woke to find Murrell performing oral sex.
- Murrell confessed to police and later wrote an apology letter to E.K.; victim and family reported to mother and police.
- Murrell was indicted for rape of a child under thirteen (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)); jury found him guilty.
- Trial court sentenced Murrell to ten years to life and classified him as a Tier III sex offender.
- Murrell timely appealed to the Montgomery County Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove rape | State argues evidence showed fellatio and sexual conduct with a minor | Murrell argues insufficient evidence to prove sexual conduct | Evidence sufficient; any rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Definition of fellatio given to jury | State asserts standard definition (mouth on penis) supported by evidence | Murrell contends instruction allowed non-contact definition | Instruction proper; fellatio defined as sexual act with mouth interacting with penis; no error |
| Lesser included offenses instructions | State argues no reasonable basis for conviction on lesser offenses | Murrell requests instructions for attempted rape and gross sexual imposition | No abuse of discretion; facts support only rape, no lesser included offenses warranted |
| Sentence legality (ten years to life) | State relies on R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(a) mandating indefinite term | Murrell argues inapplicability of predator specification statute | Indefinite term required; statute applied; sentence proper |
| Cruel and unusual punishment claim | State maintains long-standing upholding of such sentences | Murrell contends punishment unconstitutional | Rejected; affirmed based on prior caselaw |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Haggerty, 2011-Ohio-6705 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24405 (Ohio)) (sufficiency review under Jenks standard)
- State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio (1978)) (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- State v. Miles, 2007-Ohio-6680 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21904) (Crim.R. 29 standard; light in the State’s favor)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio (1991)) (reasonable-doubt standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Smith, 2004-Ohio-665 (2d Dist. Clark No. 2003CA23) (fellatio defined as mouth contacting penis)
- State v. Shondrick, 2002-Ohio-2439 (9th Dist. Medina No. 3216-M) (instruction on fellatio not required to deviate to non-contact)
- State v. Clark, 106 Ohio App.3d 426 (3rd Dist. Ohio) (upheld standard fellatio instruction)
- State v. Wilkins, 64 Ohio St.2d 382 (Ohio (1980)) (lesserIncluded offenses; test for instruction)
- State v. McConnell, 2004-Ohio-4263 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19993) (plea on cruel-and-unusual punishment arguments)