State v. Register, 260 N.E.3d 1166

Amoud Register was convicted by a jury in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court of rape, complicity, endangering children, and sexual battery, and sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after 60 years.
The convictions stemmed from sexual abuse of I.P., a child, by Register and L.P. (the child's mother), with events occurring mainly between 2019 and 2020.
L.P. initially confessed to police to her sexual activity with I.P., later implicating Register as the instigator and participant after her own sentencing.
Testimony at trial included detailed accounts from both L.P. and I.P. of Register's role in orchestrating and participating in sexual abuse, as well as corroborative testimony from a child case worker and law enforcement.
Register challenged his convictions and sentence on appeal, arguing evidentiary issues, improper reliance on witness credibility, and errors at sentencing.
The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed both Register’s convictions and sentence, overruling all assignments of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Manifest weight of evidence	Jury properly credited witness testimony	Testimony of L.P./I.P. inconsistent, not credible	Jury properly resolved inconsistencies; conviction affirmed
Admission of pre-arrest silence evidence	Facts not used as substantive evidence against Register	Register’s pre-arrest silence used against him, violating Fifth Amendment	Not a Fifth Amendment issue; no error
Admission of other acts evidence (Evid.R. 404(B))	Testimony contextual, not for propensity	Testimony about pornography was improper character evidence	Evidence properly admitted for context, not for propensity
Testimony on delayed disclosure by caseworker	Testimony based on personal experience, not expert	Caseworker lacked credentials to opine on delays	Admissible as lay testimony based on experience
Consideration of uncharged conduct in sentencing	Trial court only referenced uncharged acts re: L.P.’s sentence	Court improperly relied on uncharged/criminal acts in sentencing	No reliance on uncharged conduct in Register’s sentence

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (clarifies manifest weight of evidence standard)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (manifest weight standard for appellate review)
State v. Leach, 102 Ohio St.3d 135 (pre-arrest silence and Fifth Amendment)
State v. Williams, 134 Ohio App.3d 694 (improper for sentencing court to base sentence on uncharged conduct)