2021 Ohio 789
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Two public-indecency incidents led to appellant Eric Jermaine Shannon’s indictment: (1) Oct. 24, 2019 — between dumpsters near the Administrative Building where Kim Taylor saw an African‑American male exposing/fondling himself near a sidewalk by a school/preschool and bus traffic; (2) Oct. 26, 2019 — at North Road Coin Laundry where Barbara Hudson observed and later identified (photo array and in court) a man masturbating; surveillance video captured the laundromat incident.
- Detective investigation linked both incidents and appellant was arrested; appellant had multiple prior public‑indecency convictions and an earlier aggravated robbery conviction.
- Indicted on two counts of public indecency in violation of R.C. 2907.09(A)(1) and (C)(2) (felonies of the fifth degree given prior convictions); appellant pleaded not guilty.
- A jury convicted appellant on both counts; the trial court sentenced him to 12 months on each count, to be served consecutively (aggregate 24 months).
- On appeal appellant argued (1) the aggregate sentence was disproportionate/excessive, (2–3) insufficiency of evidence for each count (specifically that a minor was not likely to view the acts), and (4) the dumpster conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Eleventh District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Aggregate sentence excessive / disproportionate under R.C. 2929.11 | Trial court considered record, prior convictions, and R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; sentence within statutory range and intended to protect public | Sentence was based solely on prior public‑indecency convictions and thus excessive; not necessary to protect the public | Affirmed — sentence within statutory range and court considered purposes/principles of sentencing; not contrary to law |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence (count 1 — dumpster) that a minor was likely to view | Witness (Taylor) testified defendant exposed/fondled himself near sidewalk, school/preschool, and bus activity — minors could reasonably be expected to be present | “Likely” requires a high probability; defense claimed he was merely urinating and not likely to be viewed | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to support probability that a minor could have been present; element met |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence (count 2 — laundromat) that a minor was likely to view | Witness (Hudson) observed masturbating, identified appellant, and testified children frequent the laundromat (play area exists) | Defense challenged the likelihood element and identification reliability | Affirmed — jury could find beyond reasonable doubt that minors were likely to be present and identification supported conviction |
| 4. Manifest weight (count 1) — jury lost its way; he was urinating | State relied on Taylor’s testimony that defendant was fondling, not urinating, and demeanor/physical observations supported that account | Appellant argued the jury should have credited his claim he was answering nature’s call; LSC comment suggests an exception | Affirmed — court defers to jury credibility determinations; no manifest‑weight reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (discussed appellate review standard for sentencing and language later treated as dicta)
- State v. Benner, 40 Ohio St.3d 301 (Ohio 1988) (equated “likely” with “probable” in analyzing statutory language)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1990) (referenced regarding abrogation on other grounds)
- State v. Green, 18 Ohio App.3d 69 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (defined when a person is “likely to be present” under the circumstances)