State v. Shreve
2017 Ohio 8390
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jack Shreve was indicted for two counts of rape (R.C. 2907.02) and one count of gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05) based on alleged sexual abuse of his girlfriend’s daughter, K.H., who was under ten years old.
- Trial occurred December 2016; jury convicted Shreve of one rape count and the gross sexual imposition count, acquitted on the other rape count.
- Facts presented: K.H., age nine at trial, described two incidents in which Shreve made her watch porn, wear her mother’s clothes and high heels, tied her to a bed, touched her genitalia with his finger, and referenced two dildos (blue and white).
- Physical/forensic evidence: Blue and white dildos and pornographic videos were seized from the bedroom; Shreve’s DNA was on the blue dildo’s non-handle and K.H.’s DNA on the white dildo.
- Medical and mental-health testimony: Pediatric NP diagnosed child sexual abuse after K.H.’s disclosure; a psychology assistant diagnosed K.H. with PTSD. Defense pointed to prior inconsistent disclosures by K.H. regarding earlier allegations against her father.
- Sentence: life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 15 years. Shreve appealed, arguing convictions were against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Shreve's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for rape/gross sexual imposition | Evidence (victim testimony, forensic DNA, medical/psych diagnoses) proves elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Victim’s inconsistent statements and contradictions undermine credibility and sufficiency | Affirmed: evidence sufficient when viewed in prosecution’s favor |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Jury reasonably credited K.H. and corroborating evidence; diagnoses and DNA corroborate disclosures | Prior inconsistent/fantastical disclosures show unreliability; jury erred in crediting K.H. | Affirmed: no manifest miscarriage of justice; credibility for jury to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review follows Jackson v. Virginia)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for assessing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (standard for granting a new trial on manifest-weight grounds)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (clarifies difference between sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
- State v. Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182 (1990) (credibility and weight of evidence are jury functions)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (trial court and factfinder best positioned to observe witness demeanor)