State v. Young, 2016 Ohio 7477

Defendant Leonard J. Young was tried by bench trial and convicted of rape and kidnapping (with certain specifications), sentenced to nine years imprisonment; convictions merged and state proceeded on rape.
Victim C.C. lived with Young after meeting him; relationship became abusive and she planned to move out in April 2015.
C.C. reported that on April 16, 2015 Young forced her onto a bed, held her legs, and penetrated her; she fled, texted her mother (“he raped me”) within minutes, later called 911, and was examined at a hospital where bruises and a swab with foreign DNA from her inner thigh were documented.
Young admitted conflict with C.C., had been trying to force her out of his subsidized housing, denied the rape, and testified C.C. left his apartment earlier that day; he exchanged texts with C.C. before police arrival and did not directly deny her accusation in one text.
At trial the court admitted C.C.’s near‑contemporaneous texts and 911 call as excited utterances; Young raised two main appellate challenges: admission of those statements and that the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether victim’s near‑contemporaneous text messages and 911 call were admissible as excited utterances	Texts and 911 call were spontaneous statements relating to the startling event and made while declarant was under stress; admissible under Evid.R. 803(2)	Text messages require reflection and thus cannot be excited utterances; 911 call was too remote in time to be spontaneous	Court held texts and 911 call could qualify as excited utterances; even if 911 call error, admission was harmless; no plain error because defense counsel did not object at trial
Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: consistent statements to mother, 911, nurse, police and at trial, physical bruising and DNA evidence support verdict	Young: timing gaps, lack of DNA directly identifying him, inconsistencies in victim’s recollection, and some neutral appearance at police/hospital undermine credibility	Court found judge did not lose way; testimony and corroborating evidence sufficient—convictions not against manifest weight

State v. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106 (2015) (sets elements for excited utterance exception under Ohio law)
State v. Harrison, 122 Ohio St.3d 512 (2009) (defines plain‑error standard in criminal cases)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest‑weight review)
State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (2004) (requires proof of elements beyond reasonable doubt for sufficiency/weight review)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (trial court as factfinder on credibility)
State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (2007) (trial court’s advantage in observing witness demeanor)
Commonwealth v. Mulgrave, 472 Mass. 170 (2015) (recognizes that near‑instantaneous text messages may satisfy spontaneity for excited utterance analysis)
Commonwealth v. DiMonte, 427 Mass. 233 (1998) (supports treating rapid text messages similarly to oral excited statements)