State v. Wine, 2012 Ohio 2837

Wine was convicted of gross sexual imposition and sentenced after a jury trial in which the victim testified to an assault while sleeping in the same room; the court instructed on lesser offenses including sexual battery and gross sexual imposition; the State conceded polygraph-related issues but offered statements from interviews as admissible; on appeal, the court vacated the conviction for gross sexual imposition and remanded for a finding and sentence on the lesser-included offense of sexual imposition; the key issue is whether the State proved force or threat of force to sustain gross sexual imposition given the victim was asleep during the incident; the court ultimately held the force element was not proven but the lesser offense of sexual imposition was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and remanded for that conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient proof of force to suporte gross sexual imposition?	Wine argues no force was shown.	Wine contends the evidence shows only sleeping victim manipulation.	Insufficient force; remand for sexual imposition.
Admission of edited polygraph/video evidence	Souel framework governs admissibility of polygraph-related items.	Edited videos should be excluded.	No abuse of discretion; evidence admissible under Souel framework.
Jury instructions on lesser-included offenses	Instructions on sexual battery and gross sexual imposition were proper.	Instructions errored by including lesser offenses over objection.	Instruction proper; affirmed on that point; still remanded for sexual imposition.
Prosecutor's closing remarks and potential misconduct	Prosecutor engaged in improper vouching or misstatement.	Remarks were within bounds given context.	No reversible error; remarks did not deny a fair trial.

State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 (1988) (force can be psychological; parental/authority context may justify less direct coercion)
State v. Labus, 102 Ohio St. 26 (1921) (force is relative to age, size, strength, and relationship of parties)
State v. Dye, 82 Ohio St.3d 323 (1988) (authority over a child may justify force for rape/gross sexual imposition offenses)
State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (1992) (for purposes of force in rape, parental-like authority over a young victim may be considered; later limits apply when victim is adult)
State v. Souel, 53 Ohio St.2d 123 (1978) (polygraph results admissible only with stipulation, cross-exam, and limiting instruction)