State v. Rucker
2012 Ohio 185
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Rucker lived with Patricia and helped raise her daughter J.J., who called him ‘Daddy,’ during a 16‑year relationship.
- J.J. ran away at 16; she told her mother that Rucker had molested her since age 13, prompting a police investigation.
- J.J. testified that Rucker began sexually abusing her in seventh grade, including vaginal intercourse, and that she concealed belt marks.
- C.R. testified that Rucker stood by his bed with a belt to discipline him; J.J. described Rucker beating her with belts.
- In 2009, near J.J.’s sixteenth birthday, Rucker allegedly assaulted J.J. in the bedroom and had vaginal intercourse with her.
- Rucker was indicted on multiple counts; the jury convicted him of one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and one count of sexual battery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other acts evidence | Rucker: 404(B) evidence of belt discipline and beating are prejudicial. | Rucker: such acts are not properly admissible to prove intent/force. | Court allowed 404(B) evidence; relevant to intent and force, admission affirmed. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in opening statements | State allegedly overstated anticipated testimony about CR’s actions. | Rucker: statements biased trial; prejudicial. | Plain error not shown; opening remarks not grounds to reversal; affirmed. |
| Senate Bill 10 classification and separation of powers | SB 10 classification should be constitutional and properly applied. | SB 10 violates separation of powers and retroactivity. | Classification upheld; SB 10 applied to offenses after its enactment; remanded for Tier II classification error. |
| Admissibility of the Mayerson Center interview under Confrontation Clause | Recording contains inadmissible hearsay portions and violates Crawford/Arnold. | Witness testified and cross-examined; declarant appeared; admissible. | Admissible; declarant testified; Crawford/Arnold concerns not violated. |
| Vouching by expert witness | Dr. Makoroff’s testimony improperly bolstered J.J.’s credibility. | Testimony appropriately described behaviors of abused children and was permissible. | Testimony did not amount to improper vouching; admissible as behavior-consistent analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1988) (evidence of force and duress to prove elements)
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (Ohio 2011) (SB 10 retroactivity and classification issues)
- In re Bruce S., 2011-Ohio-6634 (Ohio 2011) (prior-acting statute classification issues (note: official reporter citation required))
- State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio 2010) (separation-of-powers concerns with SB 10 reclassification)
- State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (Ohio 2011) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements cross-examined)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require cross-examination)
- Arnold v. Ohio, 126 Ohio St.3d 290 (Ohio 2010) (child-interview admissibility under Confrontation Clause)
- State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260 (Ohio 1998) (allowing expert testimony on abuse-related behavior)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (sentencing ranges and discretion)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (weight of the evidence standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest weight/sufficiency review framework)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (sufficiency and credibility standard for jury)