State v. Rasheed, 2023 Ohio 906

Defendant Theron Rasheed and complaining witness G.G. worked together at a Noodles & Company; in August 2021 G.G. alleged Rasheed repeatedly rubbed his pelvic area against her buttocks while closing the restaurant.
Surveillance footage from the night of the incident (Video 1) showed multiple contacts; G.G. testified she felt Rasheed’s genitals and was made uncomfortable, then resigned a week later.
The state sought to introduce a second restaurant surveillance video (Video 2) showing Rasheed pressing his front against a woman two days later; G.G. was not present that night. Defense objected to authentication and 404(B) propensity use; the trial court admitted Video 2 and limited G.G.’s testimony to identifying Rasheed.
A jury convicted Rasheed of sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.06). He was sentenced to jail time (with credit and some suspension), fined, placed on one year of community control/probation with sex-offense counseling, and required to register as a Tier I sex offender.
On appeal the First District held Video 2 was not properly authenticated (abuse of discretion) but its erroneous admission was harmless; the sufficiency and weight challenges to the conviction were overruled and the conviction affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the second surveillance video was properly authenticated	State: Video admissible as pictorial testimony (G.G. can identify Rasheed)	Rasheed: No proper authentication — G.G. lacked first-hand knowledge and no custodian/system witness was called; silent-witness not established	Court: Admission was an abuse of discretion (not properly authenticated) but error was harmless; conviction stands
Whether Video 2 was inadmissible propensity evidence under Evid.R. 404(B)	State: Video admissible to show identity/behavior	Rasheed: Video was improper propensity evidence and prejudicial	Court: Any 404(B) error was harmless given overwhelming remaining evidence; assignment overruled
Sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting sexual-imposition conviction	State: Video 1 plus G.G.’s testimony showed purposeful unwanted sexual contact	Rasheed: Contact was incidental due to cramped workspace; no corroborating witnesses; no proof of sexual motive	Court: Evidence (Video 1 and G.G.’s testimony) was sufficient and weight did not favor acquittal — conviction not against manifest weight

Pickens v. State, 25 N.E.3d 1023 (Ohio 2014) (distinguishes pictorial-testimony and silent-witness authentication theories)
Midland Steel Prods. Co. v. U.A.W. Local 488, 573 N.E.2d 98 (Ohio 1991) (silent-witness theory; reliability of surveillance systems for authentication)
State v. Morris, 24 N.E.3d 1153 (Ohio 2014) (harmless-error and substantial-rights analysis for improperly admitted evidence)
State v. Hood, 984 N.E.2d 1057 (Ohio 2012) (harmless-error standards)
State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (standard for reviewing weight-of-the-evidence claims)
Martin v. Ohio, 485 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio Ct. App.) (sufficiency standard phrased in Martin/MacDonald line)
State v. Thyot, 105 N.E.3d 1260 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) (authentication principles and pictorial-testimony discussion)
State v. Chapman, 170 N.E.3d 6 (Ohio 2020) (community control is functionally equivalent to probation)