State v. Szorady, 2011 Ohio 1800

Szorady was charged in a 62-count second indictment alleging rape, sexual battery, pandering sexually-oriented material involving a minor, intimidation, possession of a criminal tool, and related offenses.
The victim, E.S., was 13 when the conduct began; Szorady was living as a stepfather and exercised authority over her and her family.
The trial court dismissed some counts; a mistrial occurred prior to sentencing due to an improper exhibit during deliberations.
Szorady initially received multiple appointed counsel; he waived counsel and proceeded to trial pro se with advisory counsel.
After trial, the court dismissed several counts and convicted on remaining counts with repeat offender specifications; he was sentenced to 74 years and designated Tier III sex offender.
On appeal, Szorady challenges waiver of counsel, rape shield rulings, sufficiency/weight of the rape evidence, and consecutive-sentencing findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Szorady’s waiver of counsel valid?	Szorady knowingly waived; court properly informed him.	Waiver was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made.	Waiver valid; knowingly, voluntary, intelligent.
Rape shield evidence: should E.S.'s prior sexual activity be cross-examined?	Prior sexual activity could be probative to show denial or credibility.	Rape shield bars such cross-examination except for origins of semen, pregnancy, or disease.	Excluded; not probative of a fact at issue; admissible only for specific origins.
Is the evidence sufficient to support rape convictions?	Evidence shows force or implied force over a minor in a position of authority.	No explicit force shown; arguments about resistance.	Sufficient; force shown by fear/duress of a minor under authority.
Are the rape convictions against the manifest weight of the evidence?	Evidence clearly shows fear and coercion by Szorady.	Credibility conflicts render weight questionable.	Not against the manifest weight; convictions affirmed.
Did the trial court err in imposing consecutive sentences without required findings?	Statutory findings are required for consecutive sentencing.	Ice does not require such findings and no current statutory requirement exists.	No error; no express findings required for consecutive sentences.

State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (Ohio 1976) (right to self-representation; valid waiver requires awareness of charges and penalties)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court 1975) (constitutional right to self-representation applies when knowingly and intelligently waived)
Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (U.S. Supreme Court 1948) (requirement that waiver understand nature and consequences of charges)
State v. Dyer, 117 Ohio App.3d 92 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (presumption against waiver; need for inquiry into voluntariness)
State v. Williams, 21 Ohio St.3d 33 (Ohio 1986) (rape shield balancing; impeachment vs. materiality)
State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio 1992) (force may be inferred for minor victims; authority over child permits coercive force)
State v. Fowler, Ohio App.3d 149 (Ohio App. 1985) (force can be subtle or psychological; not require overt violence)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for determining sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (reliability of circumstantial evidence standard; standard jury instruction)
State v. Bowden, 2009-Ohio-3598 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (sufficiency analysis in appellate review)
State v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (consecutive-sentencing considerations; severability of sentencing statutes)
State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2010) (Ice not reviving severed sentencing provisions; no mandatory findings for consecutive sentences)