State v. Rodriguez, 2025 Ohio 53

Amy Rodriguez was indicted for 11 counts of endangering children, each count alleging a distinct act of torture or abuse against her stepson, C.D.
The indictment and bill of particulars did not clearly link each count to a specific act, and during trial, this correlation was made only through the State's closing argument.
At trial, Rodriguez was convicted of 4 out of 11 counts; the jury acquitted her on the remainder.
The jury asked, during deliberations, which acts corresponded to which counts, but the trial court declined to clarify, instructing the jury to reference the instructions and use its collective memory.
The verdict forms and jury instructions set forth only the statutory elements, not identifying which conduct corresponded to each count.
Rodriguez appealed, arguing the lack of specificity in the instructions and verdicts violated due process and double jeopardy, as it was impossible to determine which acts led to conviction or acquittal.

Issue	Rodriguez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Must jury instructions/verdict forms specify which conduct is the basis for each count in multi-count, same-offense cases?	Yes—without specification, due process and double jeopardy rights are violated.	No legal requirement for such specificity; closing argument sufficiently linked acts/counts.	Yes; failure to specify was plain error.
Does the trial court's error preclude retrial under double jeopardy?	Yes—impossible to know which acts were acquitted/convicted, so retrial risks double jeopardy.	No; no binding rule requiring such specificity, and double jeopardy risk is speculative.	Yes; double jeopardy bars retrial.
Was the error plain and obvious?	Yes—jury confusion established error was obvious and impactful.	No binding authority in Ohio requiring it; lack of objection also undercuts claim.	Yes; error was clear given jury's confusion and existing persuasive precedent.
Did the error affect Rodriguez’s substantial rights?	Yes—she cannot challenge sufficiency or weight of evidence, nor ensure double jeopardy protection.	No demonstration of outcome-determinative prejudice; defense can reference the State's closing.	Yes; error undermined fairness and ability to appeal convictions.

State v. Shaw, 2008-Ohio-1317 (2d Dist. Ohio App.) (Reversal required where identical counts are not differentiated and some but not all charges result in conviction, precluding retrial under double jeopardy)
Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2005) (Constitution demands minimal differentiation between multiple identical criminal counts for due process)
State v. White, 2021-Ohio-1644 (1st Dist. Ohio App.) (Distinguished as all counts were convicted, so no ambiguity as to which acts led to convictions)