2017 Ohio 212
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Andrew Schee (defendant) was convicted after a jury trial in Erie County of eight counts of first-degree rape for sexually abusing his step-daughter from about age 8 through 15. Convictions covered acts when victim was under 13 (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)) and when compelled by force or threat (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)).
- Victim testified to repeated weekly abuse over ~six years, describing specific acts, locations, and coercive tactics; other witnesses corroborated aspects of timeline and harm.
- Indictment charged 17 counts across multiple counties (Erie, Huron, Knox); defendant tried in Erie County and convicted on 8 counts; sentenced to two life terms plus additional years, consecutive sentences imposed.
- Defendant appealed raising multiple assignments of error: sufficiency and manifest weight, evidentiary rulings (including grooming, animal cruelty evidence, and expert testimony), indictment specificity, confrontation/cross-examination limits, venue, mistrial, merger/allied-offenses, sentencing (consecutive), and double jeopardy.
- The Sixth District Court of Appeals reviewed legal sufficiency, weight of the evidence, evidentiary discretion, indictment challenges (timeliness/plain error), venue under course-of-conduct rules, admissibility limits for experts, merger doctrine, and statutory requirements for consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Schee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Victim testimony and corroboration satisfy elements | Evidence insufficient to prove rape counts | Convictions supported; evidence legally sufficient (Jenks standard) |
| Manifest weight | Credible evidence supports jury verdicts | Verdicts against manifest weight | No miscarriage of justice; verdicts not against manifest weight (Eastley/Thompkins standard) |
| Admission of grooming testimony | Relevant to pattern and victim’s account | Irrelevant and prejudicial without foundation | Admissible; relevant and probative not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Admission of animal-cruelty testimony | Tends to show intent/plan; notice not required where counsel elicited it | State failed to give required Evid.R. 404(B) notice; prejudicial | No reversible error; defendant’s counsel opened topic (invited error) despite lack of formal notice |
| Expert testimony / mistrial | Expert described behaviors consistent with abuse, not vouching | Expert improperly bolstered victim credibility; mistrial warranted | No mistrial; curative limiting instruction given and deemed effective (expert may describe consistency but not vouch) |
| Indictment specificity / bill of particulars | Indictment and bill of particulars adequate; no timely objection | Indictment failed to distinguish incidents, depriving fair notice | Waived by failure to timely object; no plain error—dates need not be exact in prolonged child-abuse cases |
| Venue for multi-county offenses | Offenses formed a course of criminal conduct; Erie proper under R.C. 2901.12(H) | Venue not established for acts in Knox and Huron | Venue proper in Erie; course-of-conduct prima-facie elements satisfied |
| Merger / allied offenses | Separate animus and distinct offenses over time | Offenses should merge as allied offenses of similar import | No merger; separate animus and separate offenses found under R.C. 2941.25(B) |
| Consecutive sentences | Court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; record supports them | Trial court failed to make necessary findings for consecutive terms | Consecutive sentences affirmed; findings stated on record and supported by record |
| Double jeopardy re inconsistent verdicts (Counts 2 & 3) | Multiple counts covered distinct incidents within same time window | Conviction of one and acquittal of another violates double jeopardy / inconsistent | No double jeopardy breach; jury could distinguish counts and inconsistent verdicts do not trigger reversal under Ohio law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (legal-sufficiency standard) (sets forth standard for sufficiency review)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (manifest-weight standard) (appellate role as "thirteenth juror")
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (discussing weight of the evidence review)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (trial court discretion on evidence admission)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion definition)
- State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (limits on expert testimony vouching for victim credibility)
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (Double Jeopardy Clause incorporation)