State v. Nguyen
2013 Ohio 3170
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Charles H. Nguyen was convicted by a jury of rape, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and tampering with evidence arising from an incident in which the victim testified Nguyen bound her, threatened her child, and sexually assaulted her; physical and DNA evidence supported the State’s account.
- Nguyen did not testify; the jury found him guilty on all counts and the trial court imposed consecutive 10‑year terms for rape, kidnapping, and aggravated burglary and a concurrent 5‑year term for tampering (aggregate 30 years).
- On appeal Nguyen raised nine assignments of error: challenges to expert testimony, the timing and scope of a rape‑shield hearing, exclusion/limit of cross‑examination (Confrontation Clause), admission of enlarged cervical photos and exhibit bag labels, use of documents to refresh witnesses, sufficiency/manifest weight, jury selection issues, merger/double jeopardy, and sentencing.
- The Fourth District reviewed evidentiary rulings largely for abuse of discretion and constitutional claims (Confrontation Clause) de novo, applying plain‑error review where Nguyen failed to timely object.
- Court affirmed most rulings (finding no reversible error), but remanded for the trial court to determine merger under R.C. 2941.25 for certain counts (rape, kidnapping, aggravated burglary) and, if necessary, to resentence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument (Plaintiff) | Nguyen's Argument (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony (Evid.R. 702, 705) | Experts’ testimony was admissible; witnesses were qualified or were fact witnesses and testimony was subject to cross‑examination. | Trial court violated Evid.R. 702/705 and Nguyen’s confrontation rights by admitting testimony of Winston, Shoemaker, Saracco (and by permitting expert interpretation of lab/phone data without technician). | Overruled: Saracco was a fact witness (no Evid.R. 702/705 problem); Nguyen forfeited objections to Winston and Shoemaker and failed to show plain or constitutional error. |
| Rape‑shield hearing and evidence of victim’s sexual history (R.C. 2907.02) | Court timely conducted a rape‑shield hearing during trial and properly excluded remote/irrelevant sexual history (New York incident) under R.C. 2907.02. | Court erred by denying a pretrial rape‑shield hearing and improperly limiting cross‑examination about prior sexual activity and semen origin. | Overruled: initial request was untimely but hearing occurred during trial; exclusion of remote prior incident was within rape‑shield balancing and did not violate Confrontation Clause. |
| Admission of cervical photographs and exhibit bag labels (Evid.R. 403, 611; Confrontation) | Photos and labels were probative; bag notations duplicated trial testimony; photos’ probative value outweighed any prejudice. | Enlarged digital photos misled jury; labels contained testimonial statements and prejudicial hearsay. | Overruled: admission not an abuse of discretion; any label errors harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Limits on cross‑examination / Confrontation Clause (witness coaching, deputy’s report) | Defense had opportunity and obtained denials about coaching; deputy’s alleged contradictions were not identified or preserved. | Court improperly restricted cross‑examination about alleged coaching and refused to allow questioning about a report used to refresh a deputy’s memory. | Overruled: limits were reasonable; victim denied coaching on record; defendant failed to show how Rule 612 denial violated Sixth Amendment or how contradictions mattered. |
| Use of writings to refresh and reading exhibits to jury (Evid.R. 612; present recollection refreshed) | Any error was harmless; other witnesses presented same information; reading did not change outcome. | Prosecutor impermissibly had witness read documents aloud, placing writings before jury. | Overruled: even assuming error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence | State’s evidence (victim testimony, injuries, DNA, rope/glove, phone records/texts) supported convictions. | Victim and other witnesses not credible; convictions against weight and insufficient. | Overruled: jury credibility determinations stand; convictions supported by sufficient evidence. |
| Jury selection (pretrial excusal; removal for cause) | Court acted within discretion in excusing/defering jurors for personal reasons and removing a juror for financial hardship. | Ex parte juror excusals and removal for cause violated Sixth and related rules. | Overruled: excusal was a matter between court and jurors and not reversible; removal for cause was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Merger / Double jeopardy (R.C. 2941.25) | Offenses may be of similar import but record shows separate animus for some offenses (e.g., post‑rape restraint to facilitate flight/intimidation). | Rape, kidnapping, and aggravated burglary should merge; multiple punishments violate double jeopardy. | Partly sustained/remanded: rape and kidnapping found to be of similar import but trial court’s finding of separate animus justified separate convictions; aggravated burglary and kidnapping/rape are similar in possible commission and remand required for the trial court to determine separate animus and resentence if necessary. |
| Sentencing (maximum/consecutive) | Sentences were within statutory bounds; tampering term concurrent and not contrary to law. | Maximum and consecutive sentences were excessive/abusive. | Partly deferred: appellate court declines to address some consecutive/max arguments pending merger resolution; tampering sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (Confrontation right applies to states) (defendant’s right to confront witnesses applies via Fourteenth Amendment)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (Johnson test for allied‑offense merger analysis)
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2010) (R.C. 2941.25 codifies double jeopardy multiple‑punishment protections)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (two‑step appellate review for felony sentences)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest‑weight review)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (deference to trier of fact on witness credibility)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain‑error standard under Crim.R. 52(B))
- State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (Ohio 1997) (photographic evidence admissibility and prejudice considerations)
- State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 (Ohio 2012) (present‑recollection‑refreshed doctrine and limits on placing writings before jury)