State v. Mynes, 2013 Ohio 4811

Mynes was convicted in the Fourth District of Ohio for rape; the jury found him guilty of rape but not guilty of sexual battery.
The victim, CJ, was 17 years old and has a special education background with a very childlike demeanor; she did not resist due to Mynes’ size and fear of harm.
The conduct occurred while Mynes was staying at a friend B.J.’s house; CJ slept on a living room couch while Mynes slept on another couch.
Around 4:00 a.m., Mynes sat at the end of CJ’s couch, rubbed her leg, pulled down her pants, and penetrated her with his finger, then touched her breasts and penetrated again.
CJ testified she did not want or consent to the acts and she feared Mynes might hurt her, which affected her ability to resist or report the incident.
The trial court overruled Crim.R. 29(A) motions for acquittal; Mynes did not present a defense; the defense appealed from the conviction on sufficiency of evidence and manifest weight grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the rape conviction supported by sufficient evidence?	Mynes contends the state failed to prove he purposely compelled submission by force.	State argues circumstantial evidence shows purposeful conduct and force via fear/duress given CJ’s age, size, and demeanor.	Yes; sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
Was the rape conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence?	Mynes asserts the evidence fails to establish he used force or that CJ’s will was overborne.	State argues the totality of the evidence shows Mynes purposely compelled submission by fear due to size and circumstances.	No; the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (2006-Ohio-2417) (sufficiency standard identical to Crim.R. 29(A) standard)
State v. Calloway, 4th Dist. Ross No. 10CA3147 (2011-Ohio-173) (preservation of Crim.R. 29(A) issue when defense not presented)
State v. Burton, 4th Dist. Gallia No. 05CA3 (2007-Ohio-1660) (force may be inferred from manipulation of clothing; but not controlling here)
State v. Dye, Ohio St.3d 323 (1998) (requires some evidence of force beyond the act itself)
State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 (1988) (force can be psychological; depends on victim's perspective)
State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (1990) (presumption of intent to commit the natural consequences of acts)
State v. Johnson, 56 Ohio St.2d 35 (1978) (principle of intent to engage in conduct of a certain nature)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (credibility and weight of evidence; standard for appellate review)
Jenks v. United States, Not Ohio; reference to Jenks standard (1991) (circumstantial evidence and direct evidence have equal value)
State v. Henry, 2009-Ohio-3535 (3rd Dist. Seneca No. 13-08-10) (not binding; dissent favored by the court in this context)