State v. Wareham, 2013 Ohio 3191

Lovell C. Wareham (20) was indicted for one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (R.C. 2907.04(A)) based on alleged vaginal intercourse with C.T., who was 13, occurring between Jan 3 and Feb 21, 2012.
Police responded to an altercation; Wareham was detained, taken to the station, and found with condoms; he invoked his right to counsel after being Mirandized. Officer Walker testified Wareham made statements implying sexual activity and condom use. Wareham moved unsuccessfully to suppress pre‑Miranda statements.
The State’s proof included C.T.’s testimony that she and Wareham had sex and that she told him she was 13, and testimony from C.T.’s mother (Brandy Shaw) that she twice informed Wareham of C.T.’s age and heard incriminating remarks during the February 21 incident.
Defense witnesses (Wareham, his half‑sister, and ex‑stepfather) testified it was impossible or unlikely sex occurred at Wareham’s residence because of an open‑door policy and lack of opportunity; Wareham denied the sexual contact and claimed he thought C.T. was 17. He admitted misleading Shaw about his age and name.
A jury convicted Wareham; the trial court sentenced him to 14 months’ imprisonment. Wareham appealed, arguing the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence	The State argued testimony from C.T., Officer Walker, and Shaw, plus Wareham’s statements and admissions, sufficiently proved the elements of R.C. 2907.04(A) (offender 18+ engaged in vaginal intercourse with a 13–15 year‑old while knowing or reckless as to age).	Wareham argued witness testimony (Officer Walker and C.T.) was not credible, his own testimony and alibi witnesses undermined the State, and lack of physical evidence made conviction unreliable.	Affirmed: the appellate court found the evidence and corroboration supported the jury’s credibility determinations; inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence did not weigh heavily against the verdict.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (describes appellate review for manifest weight as acting as the "thirteenth juror").
State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997) (clarifies interplay of constitutional amendment and precedent referenced in Thompkins).
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1984) (articulates standard for reversing a conviction on manifest weight grounds only in exceptional cases where the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction).
State v. Clark, 101 Ohio App.3d 389 (1995) (credibility determinations are primarily for the trier of fact).