State v. Wrasman, 2020 Ohio 6887

On Feb. 3, 2019, Wrasman (stepfather) sat close to his minor stepdaughter K.H.; K.H. testified he brushed her breast and later hugged her with his hand at the top of her buttocks over clothing. K.H. initially thought the contact was accidental.
K.H. reconsidered after Wrasman repeatedly apologized, asked her not to tell anyone, and twice confronted her in a bedroom; her mother reported the incidents to police.
The State charged Wrasman with one count of sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A)(1). Jury trial was held Jan. 27, 2020; the jury convicted.
Court sentenced Wrasman to 60 days in jail (to run concurrently with an existing sentence) and designated him a Tier I sex offender. Judgment entered Jan. 28, 2020.
On appeal Wrasman raised (1) that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (several specific omissions/ failures).

Issue	State's Argument	Wrasman's Argument	Held
Whether conviction for sexual imposition was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Evidence (K.H.’s testimony about touching, surrounding conduct, repeated apologies, suicide threats, bedroom confrontations) supports inference the contact was purposeful and offensive; jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Touching was accidental; no direct evidence of sexual gratification; K.H. and others viewed initial contact as accidental	Affirmed — jury could reasonably infer purpose and sexual motivation from the circumstances and defendant’s post-incident conduct; not an exceptional case for reversal on weight grounds
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance	State defends counsel’s strategic choices and shows omissions did not prejudice the outcome	Counsel failed to object to prosecutor’s “grooming” remark, failed to call mental-health expert, failed to object to K.H.’s statement about defendant’s knowledge, failed to impeach K.H. with out-of-record prior statement, and failed to request/insist upon jury definition of “purpose”	Affirmed — court assumed omission to define “purpose” was deficient but found no prejudice; other claimed failures were strategic, unsupported, or non-prejudicial given the record

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (deference to factfinder on witness credibility)
State v. Mundy, 99 Ohio App.3d 275 (1994) (definition of sexual contact includes requirement of purpose and purpose may be inferred)
State v. Dunlap, 129 Ohio St.3d 461 (2011) (clarifying mens rea for sexual-contact offenses)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Kole, 92 Ohio St.3d 303 (2001) (applying Strickland in Ohio)
State v. Wamsley, 117 Ohio St.3d 388 (2008) (prejudice analysis for omitted jury instructions)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims and prejudice inquiry)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (defendant entitled to instruction on each essential element)
State v. Johnson, 144 Ohio St.3d 518 (2015) (evidence of consciousness of guilt may be probative of guilt)