State v. Stoffer
2011 Ohio 5133
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Stoffer stayed with Tom and Sue Stoffer and became integrated with the family, sharing space in a room where a camera and computer were kept.
- A.P. (12) disclosed Stoffer kissed her, touched her private areas, and that he photographed her nude; the alleged acts occurred at Tom and Sue’s home and at a storage unit where evidence was later found.
- Law enforcement recovered a digital camera from a storage unit; images depicting A.P. in various stages of nudity were obtained and formed the basis of the charges.
- Stoffer moved to suppress the evidence, arguing lack of warrant and improper consent; the trial court denied the motion, ruling consent valid and the search lawful.
- A.P. and B.P. testified about the events; the defense argued competency issues with young witnesses, and the state presented medical and forensic testimony corroborating abuse.
- Stoffer was convicted on two counts of gross sexual imposition and three counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material; he received an aggregate 15-year sentence and was designated a Tier II sex offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| suppression motion adequacy | Stoffer waived Miranda, warrant and consent issues, so suppression fails | Miranda uncannily implicated; statements used to locate evidence should be suppressed | Waived Miranda issue; suppression denial affirmed |
| competency of child witnesses | Children could testify credibly about events | Young ages undermine reliability | Competency determinations upheld; testimony admissible |
| joinder and merger of counts | joinder proper under Crim.R. 8; multiple counts supported by distinct acts | should have severed counts or merged allied offenses | Joinder proper; no reversal on severance; no allied offenses requiring merger |
| admissibility and expert testimony | experts testified to facts and opinions within their expertise | experts improperly qualified or opined | Expert testimony properly admitted; no plain error |
| consecutive sentences and proportionality | consecutive sentences justified by multiple offenses and Johnson framework | need proportionality and merger analysis | Consecutive sentences within statutory range; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006) (removal of need for findings for consecutive/nonmin; focus on statutory factors)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (new approach to allied offenses under 2941.25)
- State v. Gardner, 59 Ohio St.2d 14 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997) (rape shield and balancing probative value vs. prejudice)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997) (sufficiency standard and weight-of-evidence framework)
- State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1990) (joinder and severance purposes under Crim.R. 8)