State v. Rice, 2012 Ohio 2174

M.R. (11) alleged Rice sexually abused her starting August 2008, including oral sex and genital contact; Lund confronted Rice after M.R. disclosed, Rice allegedly confessed.
DNA testing showed foreign DNA on M.R.’s breast consistent with Rice; pornographic material found on the family computers.
Rice was indicted on multiple counts; he pleaded guilty to some but post-conviction relief vacated some convictions; later a suppression hearing occurred.
The State dismissed some counts, resulting in seven verdicts and a mistrial on two counts; the State amended rape to sexual battery in exchange for a plea, sentencing Rice to ten years.
Rice appeals on seven assignments of error, challenging suppression rulings, DNA testing procedures, admissibility of computer evidence, sufficiency of evidence, weight of evidence, and cumulative error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Warrantless computer search valid under common authority	Rice	Rice	Suppression denied; Lund had common authority to consent.
DNA sample consumption; notice and testing procedures	Rice	Rice	No bad-faith destruction; suppression denied.
Admissibility of computer-derived images; evidentiary foundation	Rice	Rice	Forfeited; plain-error not argued; review limited.
Sufficiency of evidence for computer-based counts	Rice	Rice	Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions.
Cumulative error and overall fairness of trial	Rice	Rice	No reversible cumulative error; trial not deprived of fair outcome.

State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (mixed law and fact in suppression review)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (standard to review suppression findings)
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (1997) (independent legal review of facts after factual finding)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) ( appellate deference in suppression analysis)
State v. Beougher, 2003-Ohio-3591 (2003) (common authority over shared premises search)