State v. Tiggett, 2019 Ohio 1715

Defendant Marvin Tiggett, Jr. (stepfather) was indicted on four counts: two counts of rape (first-degree) and two counts of gross sexual imposition (third-degree) arising from alleged conduct between ~2011–2013.
Victim J.V., age 17 at trial, testified to multiple incidents of inappropriate touching beginning around age six through about age 12; she described a detailed incident in summer 2012 (blanket on couch, nightgown) and other episodes in 2011 and 2013.
J.V. delayed disclosure until 2016; she recorded a 2017 conversation with Tiggett in which he apologized and did not directly deny the allegations; Tiggett gave inconsistent statements to police, at one point admitting some inappropriate touching.
Tiggett admitted to touching the victim over clothing on at least one occasion but denied the other charged acts; he was acquitted on one count and convicted on three charges: Rape (one count) and Gross Sexual Imposition (two counts, including a lesser-included conviction on one rape count).
At sentencing Tiggett received concurrent terms (10 years to life on the rape count; three years on each remaining count).
On appeal Tiggett raised (1) that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the jury’s request for a typed transcript of the victim’s testimony and (2) that the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Tiggett)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying jury request for transcript of victim’s testimony	Trial court permissibly relied on jury recollection; no duty to provide transcripts	Jury needed transcript because victim’s testimony was convoluted and contradicted prior statements	No abuse of discretion; denying transcript was proper
Whether convictions were against manifest weight of the evidence	Victim’s credible, detailed testimony plus recordings and defendant’s admissions supported verdicts	Victim’s statements were inconsistent and unclear; jurors lost their way, particularly on the 2012 rape count	Convictions affirmed; jury credibility determinations will not be second-guessed

State v. Davis, 62 Ohio St.3d 326 (Ohio 1992) (abuse-of-discretion standard for jury transcript requests)
State v. Berry, 25 Ohio St.2d 255 (Ohio 1971) (trial court discretion regarding jury procedure)
State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (Ohio 1995) (mere speculation about benefit of transcript does not require reversal)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (weight-of-the-evidence standard explained)
State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (Ohio 2007) (how to assess which evidence is more persuasive)
DeHass v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
State v. Barker, 75 N.E.3d 738 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (digital penetration and finger-to-vagina contact can support rape convictions)
State v. Mattison, 23 Ohio App.3d 10 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985) (factors/guidelines for reviewing weight claims)