State v. Wright
2018 Ohio 1982
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In Dec 2016 Donnie Wright (then ~49) moved in with a woman and began a sexual relationship with her 14‑year‑old daughter; intercourse occurred multiple times daily through Feb 2017. Victim disclosed in March 2017; police investigated and Wright was indicted on five counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (specifications that offender was ≥10 years older).
- First trial resulted in a mistrial (hung jury); retrial in Oct 2017 produced convictions on three counts (Counts 2–4) and findings on the age‑gap specification; Wright was sentenced to an aggregate eight years and Tier II sex‑offender classification.
- Key testimony: the victim (admitted lying about some details but consistently testified to intercourse), a pediatrician who examined the victim, a family friend who observed nonplatonic contact and relayed victim’s admissions, and Wright’s former friend who said Wright admitted the sexual relationship. No physical/DNA evidence was collected.
- Wright moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29; the motion was denied. He later moved for a mistrial, claiming the victim improperly said “guilty” as the jury exited to deliberate; the court questioned jurors (they denied hearing any remark) and denied the mistrial.
- At sentencing the court orally said "costs are suspended," but the journalized entry ordered Wright to pay court costs; Wright appealed challenging sufficiency/manifest weight, the mistrial denial, and that the sentence was contrary to law regarding costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wright) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / Crim.R. 29 denial | Victim’s testimony, corroborated by witnesses and admissions by Wright, was sufficient to prove unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. | Evidence insufficient; victim was shown to lie and there was no physical evidence—state had only one unreliable witness. | Affirmed. Viewing evidence in favor of prosecution, a rational trier of fact could convict; conviction not against manifest weight. |
| Manifest weight / credibility of victim | Jury entitled to credit victim despite some inconsistent or untruthful statements about collateral matters. | Verdict against manifest weight because victim’s lies undermined credibility; no corroboration. | Affirmed. Inconsistencies did not negate the core allegation; jury did not lose its way. |
| Mistrial based on alleged victim comment to jury | No demonstrable improper communication; jurors and nearby advocate denied hearing any remark; defense made no request for further questioning of victim. | Alleged comment (“guilty”) biased jurors and denied fair trial; court should have held more inquiry or declared mistrial. | Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion; defendant failed to show outside influence or juror bias. |
| Sentencing: imposition of court costs | State concedes court entry conflicted with oral suspension; court may either impose costs in defendant’s presence or correct record to reflect waiver. | Court erred by ordering costs in journalized entry after orally suspending them; sentence contrary to law. | Reversed in part and remanded. Vacated only as to costs; remand for nunc pro tunc entry waiving costs or for further sentencing in defendant’s presence to decide costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (presumptively prejudicial any private communication to juror about pending matter)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (circumstantial evidence has same probative value as direct evidence)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (clerical errors in sentencing entries may be corrected nunc pro tunc)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (imposition of court costs is civil in nature and distinct from criminal punishment)
- State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 (trial court broad discretion in handling juror partiality and outside influences)
- State v. Herring, 94 Ohio St.3d 246 (defendant must show improper communication biased jurors to warrant relief)