State v. Tate (Slip Opinion)
140 Ohio St. 3d 442
| Ohio | 2014Background
- May 2011: Tate indicted on kidnapping, abduction, importuning, gross sexual imposition, and public indecency involving a 14-year-old, B.P.
- Tate waived a jury and proceeded to a bench trial; defense claimed innocent motive, no deception or force, and underage status known late.
- Trial evidence established: Tate approached B.P. outside library, showed ID, walked her to pool area, and requested oral sex; B.P. testified to threats and coercive conduct.
- Surveillance video, Tate’s phone number on fliers, Tate’s IDs, and his signature on a waiver supported his identification as the perpetrator.
- The trial court convicted Tate on all counts except abduction; the court found B.P. incredibly credible and discounted Tate’s version despite the video evidence.
- Court of Appeals vacated Tate’s convictions sua sponte, stating insufficient evidence of identity; State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the identity evidence legally sufficient? | State: identity proven beyond reasonable doubt by multiple corroborating items. | Tate: no need to dispute identity; argues other elements? (briefing not detailed in opinion). | Yes; identity evidence was overwhelming and sufficient. |
| Did the court of appeals err by vacating convictions sua sponte for lack of identity evidence? | State: court must review all trial evidence; identity was established beyond reasonable doubt. | Tate: (not expressly argued in the briefed issue) appellate court can sua sponte address sufficiency. | Yes; reversal required and remand to address assignments of error. |
| May appellate courts decide on unbriefed issues without notice or briefing? | State: not directly argued as a separate issue by Tate; requires consideration. | Tate: (not distinctly argued) issues beyond briefing should not be decided | Appellate concerns noted; remand ordered; the decision rests on overwhelming identity evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt required; standard for identity proof)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency review for circumstantial and direct evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (establishes standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest weight standard; conflicts required to overturn verdict)
- State v. 1981 Dodge Ram Van, 36 Ohio St.3d 168 (1988) (procedural requirement of notice when considering new issues on appeal)