State v. Sanchez-Garza
2017 Ohio 1234
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim (14) stayed overnight at friend L.'s house where defendant Geraldo Sanchez-Garza (L.'s father) also lived; incident occurred the next morning in L.'s bedroom.
- Victim testified Garza rubbed her back, put his hand under her clothing to rub her buttocks, then "spooned" and "dry humped" her so she felt his erect penis against her back.
- Victim ran downstairs, told friend H. while crying that Garza tried to rape her; H. corroborated seeing the victim upset and relaying the account; victim also told Garza's wife.
- Garza was charged with sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.06) and unlawful restraint; bench trial resulted in conviction for sexual imposition, acquittal on unlawful restraint, suspended jail time, two years community control, and Tier I sexual-offender classification.
- Trial evidence included testimony from the victim, H., and Officer Leist; trial court admitted H.'s recounting of the victim's immediate statements as an excited utterance and allowed Leist to say the victim's trial testimony was consistent with prior interviews (no contemporaneous objection to the latter).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Garza) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / Manifest weight: whether evidence proved sexual contact for sexual gratification and met corroboration requirement | Victim's testimony (touching, dry humping, feeling erection) plus H.'s immediate report and demeanor sufficiently proved elements and corroboration under R.C. 2907.06(B) | Contact could have been a nonsexual back massage; corroboration insufficient because H.'s account is hearsay | Conviction affirmed: evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight; H.'s testimony provided adequate corroboration per Economo standard |
| Admissibility of H.'s testimony recounting victim's statements (hearsay) | Statements admissible as excited utterances and, alternatively, admissible as non-hearsay for corroboration purposes | Statements were reflective, not spontaneous; thus not excited utterances and inadmissible hearsay | Court did not abuse discretion: statements qualified as excited utterances; alternatively, treated as non-hearsay for corroboration and admissible |
| Admissibility of Officer Leist saying trial testimony was consistent with prior interviews; and other testimonial vouching | Consistency testimony shows corroboration and was harmless; brief questions about H.'s belief and consistency were permissible | Questions effectively disclosed out-of-court statements and amounted to impermissible bolstering and use of Garza's silence as evidence | No plain error affecting outcome: Leist's answers were not prejudicial given victim testimony and bench trial; limited bolstering improper but not prejudicial; statements about Garza's silence were improper but harmless beyond reasonable doubt |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to Leidst testimony and references to Garza's silence | N/A (State) | Trial counsel should have objected; failure rendered representation deficient and prejudicial | No ineffective-assistance: counsel's choices were at least strategic; no prejudice shown because outcome would not likely have differed in bench trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Economo, 76 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1996) (scope of corroboration required by R.C. 2907.06(B))
- State v. Finnerty, 45 Ohio St.3d 104 (Ohio 1989) (trial court discretion in evidence admission)
- State v. Leach, 102 Ohio St.3d 135 (Ohio 2004) (pre-arrest silence cannot be used as evidence of guilt)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (post-arrest silence and Miranda warnings)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional violations)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (test for ineffective assistance of counsel)