2018 Ohio 4976
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Matthew A. Shaffer (age 26) was indicted for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (R.C. 2907.04) and sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(3)) arising from an incident where his 14‑year‑old stepsister awoke to him with his hand between her legs; she testified he inserted a finger into her vagina.
- Shaffer initially denied wrongdoing, later admitted to touching the victim but denied penetration.
- The victim immediately reported the incident; a medical exam showed an abrasion consistent with her account.
- At trial the State requested attempt instructions for both counts; the jury acquitted on unlawful sexual conduct but convicted on attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and on sexual battery.
- Shaffer appealed, arguing (1) inconsistent jury verdicts on allied offenses violated double jeopardy and (2) sexual battery conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Shaffer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inconsistent verdicts on allied offenses violate double jeopardy | Inconsistent verdicts do not require reversal; double jeopardy does not apply to inconsistent multi‑count verdicts | Inconsistent verdicts (acquittal on unlawful sexual conduct but conviction for attempted unlawful sexual conduct and sexual battery) violate double jeopardy because offenses are allied and arise from a single act | Court: Inconsistent verdicts on different counts need not be reconciled; double jeopardy not violated — assignment overruled |
| Whether evidence supported sexual battery conviction (unawareness element) — sufficiency and manifest weight | Evidence (victim’s testimony, medical findings, defendant’s interview, family testimony) permits inference that defendant knew victim submitted because she was or pretended to be unaware; jury could convict | Argues victim was aware when penetration occurred (she had awakened and pretended to be asleep), so the unawareness element of R.C. 2907.03(A)(3) not met; conviction against manifest weight | Court: Conviction affirmed. Jury reasonably credited victim’s testimony and surrounding facts; sufficiency and weight standards met |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358 (Ohio 2004) (inconsistent verdicts on different counts do not justify overturning a verdict)
- State v. Hicks, 43 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio 1989) (multi‑count verdicts are independent; inconsistency across counts is not reversible error)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (inconsistent jury verdicts do not require reconciliation; acquittal does not automatically invalidate a conviction on another count)
- State v. Lovejoy, 79 Ohio St.3d 440 (Ohio 1997) (sanctity of jury verdict preserved; courts should not speculate to resolve inconsistencies)
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1932) (verdict consistency not required where offenses are separately charged; acquittal on one count not res judicata for others)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard and framework for manifest‑weight review)