State v. Smith, 2016 Ohio 7084

Background

On Dec. 23, 2014, L.E. was beaten for about an hour by Frederick Smith with a coat hanger, belt, shoe, fists and feet; she lost consciousness and later woke with torn clothing and no pants. She went to her mother and was taken to the hospital.
Smith was arrested; in a police interview he admitted beating L.E. and later stated he and L.E. had “consensual sex.” Police and medical evidence documented extensive injuries and L.E.’s lack of recollection of the sexual act.
Indictment charged Smith with rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c)), felonious assault, and sexual battery. Smith waived a jury; bench trial resulted in convictions on all counts; rape and sexual battery were merged for sentencing; court imposed consecutive prison terms (10 years for rape, 7 years for felonious assault).
Smith appealed raising seven assignments of error: (1) admission of his statement without corpus delicti corroboration; (2–3) sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges to rape/sexual-battery convictions; (4) oral amendment of indictment; (5) failure to merge rape and felonious assault; (6) imposition of consecutive sentences; (7) cumulative error.
The Ninth District affirmed: it found L.E.’s testimony and physical evidence satisfied the corpus delicti rule for admitting Smith’s statement; evidence was sufficient and not against the manifest weight; the indictment amendment was permissible; offenses did not merge; consecutive sentences were properly supported.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Smith's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Smith’s out‑of‑court statement under the corpus delicti rule	L.E.’s testimony and physical evidence provided “some evidence” that sexual conduct occurred, so statement admissible	Statement was a confession and inadmissible without independent proof of sexual conduct	Court: Overruled objection; corpus delicti satisfied and admission not an abuse of discretion
Sufficiency of evidence for rape and sexual battery	Physical injuries, L.E.’s testimony about being coerced and unconsciousness, and Smith’s admission support elements	Insufficient proof sexual conduct occurred; conviction should be reversed	Court: Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions
Manifest weight of the evidence	Testimony, photos, and defendant’s admission are credible and support verdict	L.E. lacked independent memory, delayed/reporting, and physical evidence did not corroborate sexual act	Court: Not an exceptional case; verdict not against manifest weight
Amendment of indictment at close of State’s case	Omitted statutory phrase was a clerical/typographical defect; Crim.R.7(D) permits cure where identity of offense unchanged	Oral amendment prejudiced Smith	Court: Amendment permissible; no prejudice; assignment overruled
Merger of rape and felonious assault	Rape and assault were separate acts in sequence; separate harms/occurrences support convictions on both	Offenses are allied and should merge for sentencing	Court: Offenses committed separately; no merger required
Consecutive sentences	Record supports R.C.2929.14(C)(4) findings (necessity, proportionality, course of conduct, great/unusual harm)	Consecutive terms improper	Court: Trial court made required findings; sentences affirmed
Cumulative error	N/A (State)	Multiple errors deprived Smith of fair trial	Court: No identifiable errors to aggregate; assignment overruled

Key Cases Cited

State v. Maranda, 94 Ohio St. 364 (corpus delicti requires some proof independent of confession)
State v. Van Hook, 39 Ohio St.3d 256 (corpus delicti standard not demanding)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (legal standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (manifest‑weight review standard)
State v. O’Brien, 30 Ohio St.3d 122 (Crim.R.7(D) cure of indictment omissions when identity unchanged)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (test for allied offenses of similar import)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (requirements for trial court findings when imposing consecutive sentences)