State v. Soto
2016 Ohio 7476
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In July 2014, M.R. (then 23) attended a bar where she met Juan Soto and Emmanuel Machuca; she drank a beverage and later inhaled white powder shown to her by Soto.
- M.R. was transported by Soto and Machuca between homes, became groggy/in and out of consciousness, and later reported oral, vaginal, and anal sexual assaults by Soto and Machuca.
- A sexual assault nurse examiner observed trauma and collected oral, vaginal, anal, nail, and hair samples; toxicology showed alcohol and cocaine metabolites but no common "date rape" sedatives.
- DNA testing matched Machuca to several samples; Soto’s DNA was not detected on the collected items.
- Soto was indicted on multiple rape and kidnapping counts; a jury convicted Soto of rape by impairment (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(a)) for Count 13 (fellatio by causing intoxication). He was sentenced to five years and classified as a Tier III sex offender.
- On appeal Soto raised errors related to jury instructions (complicity and lesser-included offenses), sufficiency/manifest weight of the evidence, and denial of a Crim.R. 29 motion; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether giving a complicity instruction (aider/abetter) was improper because the indictment/bill of particulars did not charge complicity | State: indictment in terms of principal offense puts defendant on notice under R.C. 2923.03(F); evidence supported complicity instruction | Soto: no notice he could be held liable as aider/abettor; no objective evidence placing him at scene or engaging in sexual conduct | Court: Instruction proper; even if unnecessary, Soto was convicted as principal; indictment placed him on notice and evidence supported complicity theory |
| Whether jury instructions on rape-by-impairment and on lesser included offense (sexual battery) were erroneous or confusing | State: instructions (as clarified) accurately presented elements and permitted lesser-included consideration | Soto: court gave an "acquittal first" instruction, failed to recite sexual battery instruction for Count 13, creating plain error and confusion | Court: Any erroneous wording was corrected and clarified on the record; failure to recite sexual battery on Count 13 was harmless—no plain error; jury polling confirmed understanding and verdict |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Soto of rape by impairment (Count 13) | State: M.R.’s testimony, nurse’s findings, toxicology, and witness accounts supported that Soto administered substances and engaged in sexual conduct while M.R. was impaired | Soto: lack of Soto DNA, lack of direct proof he forced or surreptitiously administered substances, and inconsistencies in M.R.’s memory undermine sufficiency | Court: Conviction supported; evidence and reasonable inferences were sufficient and the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether denial of Crim.R. 29 motion (judgment of acquittal) was erroneous | State: presented adequate evidence to submit the case to the jury | Soto: argued insufficiency of evidence to sustain charge | Held: Denial proper—sufficiency standard met and appellate manifest-weight review dispositive in favor of conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chinn, 85 Ohio St.3d 548 (discretionary standard for jury instructions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion defined)
- State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247 (objection requirement and plain-error framework for jury instructions)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (plain error and substantial-rights standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinction between sufficiency and manifest weight)
- State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (Crim.R. 29 appellate review equals sufficiency review)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (appellate role in weighing credibility and manifest-weight review)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (plain-error reversal requires different outcome absent error)