State v. Scott
155 N.E.3d 56
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Zachary E. Scott was indicted on one count of gross sexual imposition (GSI) and three counts of rape based on allegations that he sexually abused P.W., his then nine‑year‑old victim, in Mother’s Clermont County home between May 2014 and June 2015.
- The GSI count alleged Scott forced P.W. to place her hand on his penis; victim consistently reported multiple incidents and one occasion of being forced to touch his penis.
- The state sought, and the trial court granted, an amendment to the indictment expanding one charged date range; later at trial the state moved to further expand the range and the court denied that motion.
- At trial the jury convicted Scott of GSI (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)) but acquitted on the rape counts; Scott was sentenced to 60 months in prison.
- On appeal Scott argued (1) the evidence was insufficient and the verdict against the manifest weight because the charged date range was not proved and the touching allegation was uncorroborated, and (2) the 60‑month sentence was not commensurate with the seriousness of his conduct.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Scott's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / Crim.R. 29 (did evidence prove GSI beyond a reasonable doubt?) | P.W.’s testimony and prior statements were consistent and sufficient to prove sexual contact with a child under 13. | Evidence was insufficient because victim’s timeline placed at least one act (mid‑May 2014) outside the indictment’s date range. | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; denial of Crim.R. 29 proper. |
| Manifest weight (was conviction against manifest weight?) | Jury could credit P.W.’s live and forensic interview testimony; no corroboration requirement for sexual assault victim. | Verdict was against manifest weight due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. | Affirmed — jury did not lose its way; conviction not against manifest weight. |
| Sentencing (was 60 months contrary to law / disproportionate?) | Trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, found factors (victim’s young age, relationship, psychological harm, lack of remorse) supporting prison within statutory range. | Sentence not commensurate with seriousness; trial court misweighed factors. | Affirmed — sentence supported by record and not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169 (1985) (precise dates and times are not essential elements of offenses; omission of date not fatal absent prejudice)
- Tesca v. State, 208 Ohio St. 287 (1923) (it is sufficient to prove the alleged offense at or about the time charged)
- State v. Blankenburg, 197 Ohio App.3d 201 (12th Dist. 2012) (child sexual‑offense indictments need not state specific dates so long as offense is within alleged timeframe)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear and convincing showing that sentence is unsupported or contrary to law)
- State v. Brandenburg, 146 Ohio St.3d 221 (2016) (appellate court may modify sentence only if clearly and convincingly contrary to law or unsupported by record)