State v. Warman
2017 Ohio 244
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victims: KG6 (age 6) and KG5 (age 5) are sisters; Mother lived with defendant Ryan Warman and sometimes had Warman pick the children up for visitation from their Father in Trenton, Butler County, Ohio.
- Allegations: After a June 5, 2015 visit, KG6 disclosed that Warman showed her his penis and used a "ring pop game" to coerce oral contact; KG5 described tasting Warman's penis during a Mayerson Center interview but later testified she only watched.
- Investigation: Both children were interviewed at the Mayerson Center; interviews were video-recorded and observed by police. Warman gave a voluntary statement denying abuse.
- Procedural posture: Warman was indicted on two counts of first-degree felony rape (one for each child). At trial the jury convicted on count one (KG6) and acquitted on count two (KG5). The trial court sentenced Warman to 15 years to life.
- Evidence at trial: Trial testimony by KG6 and KG5 described fellatio; the state played KG6’s Mayerson Center interview in full over defense objection under Evid.R. 803(4). Defense argued insufficiency of evidence (including venue), requested a lesser-included instruction (gross sexual imposition), and challenged admissibility of the video.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Warman's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Sufficiency of evidence / Crim.R. 29 (count two) and venue (count one) | Video interview statements and other testimony provide circumstantial and direct evidence for both counts; venue may be established circumstantially because the trip began/ended in Butler County | KG5’s trial testimony denied participation; children could not precisely locate where the acts occurred; thus insufficient evidence and venue not proved | Denial of Crim.R.29 was proper: KG5’s recorded statement was sufficient for jury to decide count two; venue proved circumstantially for count one; no prejudicial compromise verdict found |
| 2) Failure to give lesser-included instruction (gross sexual imposition) on count one | Evidence (fellatio) supports rape, not merely sexual contact; jurors would either believe victims and convict of rape or disbelieve and acquit | Inconsistent statements at the interview could support conviction only for lesser offense (sexual contact) | No abuse of discretion: evidence did not reasonably support acquittal on rape but conviction on GSI; no lesser-included instruction required |
| 3) Admission of KG6’s Mayerson Center interview under Evid.R. 803(4) | Portions of the child's descriptive statements were reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis/treatment and thus admissible; even if some parts were forensic, any error was harmless | Interview was primarily forensic (investigative) and not for medical diagnosis/treatment; admission under 803(4) was improper | Court found some statements were not within 803(4) but admission was harmless because trial testimony independently supported conviction; assignment overruled (concurring judge would have upheld full admission) |
| 4) Manifest weight of the evidence (count one) | Victim testimony was detailed, corroborated by KG5, and persuasive; inconsistencies were for jury to weigh | Testimony inconsistent with recorded interviews; delay in reporting and possible influence by caretakers undermines credibility | Conviction not against the manifest weight of the evidence; jurors did not lose their way; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290 (2010) (distinguishes medical/forensic statements in child-advocacy interviews)
- State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5 (2007) (hearsay exception for statements to social workers when for medical diagnosis/treatment)
- State v. Wine, 140 Ohio St.3d 409 (2014) (standard for lesser-included offense instructions)
- State v. Robb, 88 Ohio St.3d 59 (1999) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause requires opportunity for cross-examination for testimonial statements)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (primary-purpose test for determining whether statements are testimonial)