State v. Seelenbinder, 2013 Ohio 337

Seelenbinder was charged in Mason Municipal Court with sexual imposition after an undercover park sting in Warren County.
Video evidence shows Seelenbinder discussing undercover status and reaching toward the detective, with the act captured on video and audio when the detective said not to touch him.
After the incident, the detective found KY Jelly and tissues in Seelenbinder's pockets and Seelenbinder made statements indicating concern about consequences.
Statutes: sexual contact is prohibited when offensive to the other person; ‘sexual contact’ includes touching erogenous zones for sexual arousal or gratification.
Definitions: knowing and reckless mens rea under R.C. 2901.22 and the standard for corroboration under R.C. 2907.06(B) require some corroborating evidence beyond a victim’s testimony.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding there was sufficient corroboration (video, items found, and Seelenbinder’s statements) to support the verdict under Economo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient corroborating evidence under 2907.06(B)?	Seelenbinder argues there is no corroboration.	Seelenbinder contends no independent evidence of touching.	Yes; sufficient corroboration beyond victim testimony.

State v. Economo, 76 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1996) (corroboration need not be independently sufficient to convict; slight corroboration suffices)
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (Ohio 2006) (standard for assessing sufficiency after corroboration and review of evidence)