State v. Shank
2013 Ohio 5368
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Patrick Shank was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of sexual battery (coercion), one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and two counts of contributing to the unruliness/delinquency of a minor based primarily on testimony of R.A. and S.K.; sentence totaled 72 months.
- R.A., who began visiting the Shank home at 13, testified about multiple incidents from 2008–2010 in which Shank forced sexual acts on her and about underage drinking at the home.
- S.K. testified about a June 2011 party where minors drank (beer pong) and alleged Shank pulled down her shirt and kissed her.
- Two other women (K.A. and N.A.) testified as "other acts" witnesses about similar sexual conduct by Shank on teens at the residence.
- Trial court admitted the other-acts evidence with limiting instructions; jury convicted Shank on most counts; trial court imposed concurrent 60-month terms for sexual battery, a consecutive 12-month term for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and concurrent 6-month jail term for the misdemeanors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of "other acts" evidence under Evid. R. 404(B) / R.C. 2945.59 | State: K.A. and N.A. corroborate pattern, motive, plan, intent; relevant and probative | Shank: Other-acts testimony inadmissible propensity evidence | Court: Admitted; applied Williams three-step test; limiting instructions mitigated prejudice; no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (Crim.R. 29) | State: Victim and corroborating witnesses/photographs support convictions | Shank: R.A. unreliable, inconsistent; no proof of coercion or underage drinking | Court: Evidence sufficient; viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could convict |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: jury credibility determinations should stand | Shank: witness inconsistencies, delayed reporting, conduct inconsistent with victims | Court: Weight is for jury; record supports verdict; no manifest miscarriage of justice |
| Sentence (maximum and consecutive terms) | State: trial court considered statutory factors, prior convictions, PSI | Shank: court failed to state findings to justify maximum/consecutive; recidivism factors misapplied | Court: Sentence within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and prior convictions; absence of PSI in record means presumption trial court used it; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 2012) (articulates three-step test for admitting other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B))
- State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio 2012) (decision to admit other-acts evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for de novo sufficiency review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution for sufficiency review)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial courts have discretion to impose sentences within statutory range following Blakely/Foster)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (two-step appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the trier of fact)