State v. Osley, 2018 Ohio 437

Defendant Jerry Osley (46) was convicted by a jury of rape (R.C. 2907.02) and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (R.C. 2907.04) for an assault on 15-year-old B.T.; sentenced to ten years after the convictions merged for sentencing.
Alleged facts: Osley lured B.T. to an abandoned house, took her phone, strangled her, held a knife, forced oral sex, and threatened to kill her; victim escaped after striking him with a piece of wood and an unhinged door.
Police located Osley shortly after; he had an apparent forehead injury, blood on his coat, and B.T.’s cell phone; B.T. identified him. Forensic testing later identified B.T.’s saliva on penile samples from Osley and Osley’s blood on B.T.’s phone; no semen was found in oral swabs.
Just before voir dire, Osley disrupted the venire, loudly accusing the panel of being racist and biased because of its racial composition; defense counsel asked the court to excuse the venire and summon a new panel.
The trial court declined to draw a new venire, gave curative instructions to the panel and later jury to disregard Osley’s outburst, and proceeded; the jury convicted. Osley appealed, raising (1) denial of his request to dismiss the venire/mistrial and (2) that the rape conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Osley)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss the venire or declare a mistrial after defendant’s outburst in front of prospective jurors	The state ultimately deferred to the court but argued that curative instructions were appropriate; also contended defendant invited the error and jurors who were seated were not shown to be actually prejudiced	The venire was tainted by defendant’s racist accusations and the court should have excused the panel and empaneled a new jury or declared a mistrial	No abuse of discretion. Court relied on invited-error doctrine, curative instructions, and presumption jurors followed instructions; denial of mistrial affirmed
Whether the rape conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Evidence (victim testimony, physical injuries, 9-1-1 call, identification, DNA linking victim’s saliva to defendant and defendant’s blood to victim’s phone) supported conviction; absence of semen was explained by forensic testimony	Argues lack of semen in oral swab undermines rape finding and contends parts of victim’s account were implausible	Not against manifest weight. Jury credibility determinations credited victim; forensic testimony explained absence of semen; conviction affirmed

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State ex rel. Bitter v. Missig, 72 Ohio St.3d 249 (Ohio 1995) (invited-error doctrine bars a party from taking advantage of an error it induced)
State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d 487 (Ohio 1999) (defendant may not claim mistrial or curative instruction relief after creating the outburst)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App.) (manifest-weight reversal reserved for exceptional cases where evidence weighs heavily against conviction)