State v. Scott
2017 Ohio 2642
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim (J.D.) testified she was sexually abused by Jeremy Scott from ages 7–12 while he lived with her (boyfriend then stepfather).
- Grand jury indicted Scott on 10 counts of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)), 10 counts of sexual battery, and 4 counts of gross sexual imposition; each count alleged the victim was under 13, and counts 1–4 alleged the victim was under 10.
- Trial lasted four days; jury convicted Scott on all counts. The court merged the sexual battery and GSI counts into the rape counts for sentencing.
- Sentenced to consecutive life terms with staggered parole-eligibility dates; Scott appealed asserting duplicative/indistinct counts violated due process.
- No contemporaneous objection to the indictment was made in the trial court; Scott moved for a bill of particulars, but the record is unclear whether he received one or the court ruled on it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether identically worded, overlapping time-period counts in the indictment denied due process by being duplicative/indistinct | State: counts sufficiently pleaded and differentiated at trial through testimony and exhibits | Scott: identically-worded paired counts (per age-period) failed to delineate separate factual bases, harming due process (relying on Valentine) | Court held no plain error; State adequately delineated incidents at trial and Scott failed to show error or preserve/press claim about lack of bill of particulars |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (Ohio 2010) (failure to object to an indictment waives all but plain-error review on appeal)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain-error standard requires an obvious deviation that affected substantial rights and the trial outcome)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain error is noticed with utmost caution and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice)
- Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2005) (indictment with numerous identically worded counts without differentiation can violate due process if the prosecution fails to delineate the factual bases)