State v. Taylor, 2019 Ohio 3253

Martigus C. Taylor visited his ex-partner C.D.'s Akron home on Oct. 26, 2017 despite an active civil protection order (CPO); an argument and subsequent sexual encounter occurred.
C.D. testified Taylor forced her to have sex and then assaulted her multiple times (punches, struck with a baseball-bat handle); she sustained visible injuries and emergency responders photographed and treated her.
Taylor testified the sexual encounter was consensual, claimed C.D. armed herself with a bat and a knife, and said some injuries resulted from her falling; he admitted poking her with the bat but denied striking her as she described.
Taylor was convicted by a jury of third-degree felony domestic violence (enhanced based on prior domestic-violence convictions) and first-degree misdemeanor violating a protection order; sentenced to concurrent terms (2 years prison; 180 days jail).
On appeal Taylor argued (1) the trial court erred by denying a mistrial after C.D. unexpectedly testified she had been forced to have sex, and (2) the domestic-violence conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The Ninth District affirmed, concluding the unsolicited rape remark did not deprive Taylor of a fair trial and the jury reasonably credited C.D.’s testimony over Taylor’s conflicting account.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Taylor)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after C.D. testified Taylor forced sex	The State relied on the overall evidence of assault and argued the witness’s unsolicited remark was addressed by cross-examination and did not require a mistrial	Taylor argued the unsolicited testimony was highly prejudicial and ambushed the defense, warranting mistrial	No abuse of discretion; remark was brief, the defense cross-examined and elicited contradictory testimony, and overwhelming evidence of violence remained
Whether the domestic-violence conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	The State argued the jury reasonably believed C.D.’s testimony and corroborating medical/photographic evidence supported conviction	Taylor contended his account was plausible and evidence favored acquittal	Affirmed: weight-of-evidence review did not show a manifest miscarriage of justice; jury credibility determinations upheld

State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest-weight reversal reserved for exceptional cases)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1983) (discussing reversal standard for weight of evidence)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (trier-of-fact credibility deference rule)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion definition)
Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (deference in abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118 (1991) (mistrial standard: only when ends of justice require)