State v. Winston
2018 Ohio 2525
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Oct. 22, 2012, A.B. and her boyfriend T.F. were accosted by two armed men; A.B. was dragged, forced to perform multiple acts of fellatio, exposed, and assaulted; T.F. escaped and police were called.
- Columbus investigators charged Levone Winston and co-defendant Juan Mandujano (deceased at trial) after forensic testing: Winston’s DNA was found in a cutting from the crotch of A.B.’s shorts and as a minor contributor in a stairwell swab; Mandujano’s DNA was found on A.B.’s vaginal swab.
- Winston testified, denied involvement, but admitted association with Mandujano and made incriminating jail-call statements urging his fiancée to “find them” and “take their asses out.”
- A jury convicted Winston of kidnapping, three counts of rape, two counts of attempted rape, and firearm specifications; he was sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment.
- Winston appealed, raising (1) Crim.R. 29 insufficiency / manifest-weight challenges; (2) admission of victim-impact testimony; (3) qualification of the SANE nurse as an expert; and (4) admission of a firearm and related detective testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence that Winston was a perpetrator | DNA on victim’s shorts and stairwell, Mandujano’s DNA on vaginal swab, victim and T.F. testimony, and incriminating statements support convictions | DNA presence alone insufficient; alternative transfer explanations; misidentification and framing by Mandujano theory | Convictions affirmed: weight and sufficiency supported by DNA, corroborating testimony, and jury credibility findings |
| Admission of victim-impact testimony about counseling and ongoing fear | Testimony relevant to corroborate that the assault occurred and to the victim’s credibility; brief and not unduly prejudicial | Testimony irrelevant and calculated to invoke sympathy, thus unfairly prejudicial | Trial court did not abuse discretion; testimony relevant to corroboration and harmless even if erroneous |
| Qualification of SANE nurse (Lynn Ressler) as an expert under Evid.R. 702 | Nurse’s specialized training, SANE certification, and experience aid the jury on forensic-exam topics | Certification brief and SANE duties mainly evidence collection; not sufficiently expert | Court did not abuse discretion; Ressler’s training/experience sufficed and defense had cross-examination opportunity |
| Admission of recovered firearm and detective testimony | Weapon was similar to victim’s description and admissible for identification/ corroboration | Testimony and gun evidence were irrelevant, prejudicial, and lacked any link to Winston | Although detective’s testimony overstated connection and the gun should have been excluded, admission was harmless given DNA and other strong evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (Ohio 2001) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 (Ohio 2012) (victim testimony about trauma admissible to prove offense occurred)
- State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 (Ohio 2006) (expert qualification does not require specific certification)
- Hymore v. State, 9 Ohio St.2d 122 (Ohio 1967) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission/exclusion of evidence)