State v. Tate
2013 Ohio 370
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Tate appeals his conviction in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas for gross sexual imposition, among other charges.
- Victim C.G., born July 11, 2000, testified Tate touched his penis and instructed him to touch Tate’s penis inside Tate’s home in 2010.
- C.G.’s mother, R.M., testified Tate often stayed with the family and helped with care; she delayed reporting due to being overwhelmed.
- Medical examination occurred five months after the alleged acts, yielding no physical evidence; Nurse Goellnitz corroborated C.G.’s statements in part.
- Jury found Tate guilty of three counts of gross sexual imposition; other charges were acquitted; trial court imposed concurrent 48-month sentences.
- On appeal, Tate argues insufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence; the appellate court overrules these arguments and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/manifest weight of GSI evidence | Tate argues the evidence is insufficient and the verdict against the weight of the evidence. | Tate asserts the state failed to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt and the verdict was not supported by credible evidence. | Evidence supported conviction; not against weight or sufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1978) (sufficiency standard for Crim.R. 29 and appellate review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency review: rational mind could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (weight of evidence; ‘lost its way’ standard)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight of evidence are jury's province)
- State v. Lindsey, 2000-Ohio-465 (Ohio 2000) (exceptional case for granting new trial; weighs heavily against conviction)
- In re Anderson, Ohio App.3d 441 (Ohio App. 1996) (definition of sexual arousal/gratification within GSI context)
- State v. Astley, 36 Ohio App.3d 247 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 1987) (touching erogenous zones can constitute sexual contact)
- State v. Meredith, 12th Dist. No. CA2004-06-062 (Ohio 2005) (infer intent from nature of contact; sexual arousal element sufficient without direct testimony)
- State v. Mundy, 99 Ohio App.3d 275 (Ohio App. 2d Dist. 1994) (fact-based inference of purpose behind contact)
- State v. Cobb, 81 Ohio App.3d 179 (Ohio App. 9th Dist. 1991) (allowing inference of sexual arousal/gratification from conduct)