State v. Ross, 2018 Ohio 452

Defendant Stephen Ross was tried and convicted by a jury in Portage County for one count of rape (fellatio/cunnilingus) of his daughter H.R. (under 10) and three counts of gross sexual imposition; sentenced to an aggregate 30 years to life.
H.R., who testified she was first abused at age 3 and repeatedly through age 10, described fellatio, cunnilingus, breast sucking, digital and penile contact, and that the acts were kept a “little secret.”
Mother reported behavioral and anxiety symptoms in H.R. beginning at age 3 (sleep problems, tantrums, urination issues, sexualized conduct at school/neighborhood) and sought repeated mental-health treatment; symptoms improved after supervised visitation ended and criminal proceedings began.
Forensic nurse examiner’s physical exam was normal; she explained physical findings are often absent when abuse is not recent or when no penile penetration occurred.
Defense presented two experts (a pediatrician and a psychologist). The psychologist, Dr. Brams, reviewed records but had not interviewed H.R. and ultimately opined H.R. was not credible; the trial court struck the portion of that opinion concluding the child’s statements were untrue as improperly addressing veracity.
On appeal defendant challenged sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence, exclusion/curative instruction regarding Dr. Brams’ credibility opinion, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the appellate majority affirmed, one judge dissented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict	State: H.R.’s testimony (if believed) and corroborating behavioral/therapeutic evidence sufficed to prove sexual conduct and contact	Ross: No physical evidence; H.R. was unreliable; defense experts disputed credibility	Affirmed—victim’s testimony + expert evidence on symptoms was legally sufficient
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: Jury credited H.R., mother, and state experts; not an exceptional case to overturn	Ross: Jury should have credited his testimony and defense experts; verdict against weight	Affirmed—appellate court will not reweigh credibility; no manifest miscarriage of justice
Exclusion/curative instruction re: Dr. Brams’ testimony	State: Expert cannot testify to victim’s veracity; court properly struck impermissible credibility opinion and instructed jury to disregard it	Ross: Strike was overbroad; curative instruction vague and prejudicial	Affirmed—court properly struck the discrete veracity opinion; instruction not plain error; remaining expert testimony admitted
Ineffective assistance of counsel	State: Counsel’s conduct was within reasonable trial strategy; no prejudice shown under Strickland	Ross: Counsel failed to preserve/contest admissibility and instruction; failed to exploit a recorded prior statement	Affirmed—no deficient performance or prejudice established

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency review standard for criminal convictions)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest weight vs. sufficiency distinctions)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (credibility determinations rest with the factfinder)
State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (expert may not testify to veracity of child-declarant; expert testimony about consistency with abuse admissible)
State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260 (expert testimony that a child’s behavior is consistent with sexual abuse is admissible to counter misconceptions about delayed disclosure)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)