State v. Rowe, 2018 Ohio 5066

Defendant Brian Rowe lived with girlfriend Jennifer, her mother, and Jennifer’s four children (including daughters A.P. and I.L.) from 2012 until about March 2015; allegations were disclosed in February 2016.
Rowe was tried by jury and convicted of one count of gross sexual imposition (against A.P.) and two counts of rape (against I.L.).
A.P. (born 2002) testified that when she was 11–12 years old Rowe pulled off her clothes in the garage, rubbed his genitals on her vagina, and repeatedly woke and groped her over time.
I.L. (about 9 at trial) testified via closed-circuit that, at age 5–6, Rowe twice forced her to perform oral sex—once with a blanket over her head and once on her bed; she identified Rowe by name and as the baby sister’s father, though she could not visually pick him out on the courtroom monitor.
Rowe argued insufficiency and manifest-weight, asserting (1) gaps in his time in the home made identification impossible and (2) Jennifer’s other boyfriend (Chris) was the true abuser and/or Jennifer coached the children.
The jury convicted; on appeal the court reviewed both legal sufficiency (de novo) and manifest weight (thirteenth juror standard) and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for gross sexual imposition (A.P.)	State: A.P.’s testimony that Rowe rubbed his genitals on her vagina while she was under 13 proves the offense.	Rowe: He was absent for long periods and moved out by March 2015; the timeframe in the indictment makes identification impossible.	Held: Sufficient — A.P.’s description within the charged timeframe supports conviction; precise date not essential.
Sufficiency of evidence for rape (I.L.)	State: I.L.’s testimony that Rowe forced oral sex on her at age 5–6 and her naming him supports rape convictions.	Rowe: I.L. could not visually identify him at trial and gave inconsistent details (e.g., camping, timing), so identification is insufficient.	Held: Sufficient — testimony identifying Rowe by name and relationship, and describing acts, was enough despite inability to visually ID at trial.
Manifest weight of the evidence / credibility	State: Jury heard witnesses, weighed credibility, and returned guilty verdicts.	Rowe: Evidence conflicted, mother Jennifer was allegedly abusive/alcoholic and may have coached children; prior investigation into Chris suggests alternate perpetrator.	Held: Not against manifest weight — jury was entitled to credit victims’ testimony; defendant’s theories were unproven and inconsistencies go to credibility.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence and distinction from manifest weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency test: viewing evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution)
State v. Robinson, 162 Ohio St. 486 (1955) (earlier Ohio authority on sufficiency review)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (appellate court as "thirteenth juror" in manifest-weight review)
State v. Barnecut, 44 Ohio App.3d 149 (1988) (precise date of offense is not an essential element)
State v. Mundy, 99 Ohio App.3d 275 (1994) (victim’s inability to recall exact dates often goes to credibility rather than sufficiency)