IN RE WASHINGTON.
No. 94-2126
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted December 12, 1995—Decided March 6, 1996.
75 Ohio St.3d 390 | 1996-Ohio-186
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 65755.
A child under the age of fourteen is presumed capable of committing rape. (Williams v. State [1846], 14 Ohio 222, and Hiltabiddle v. State [1878], 35 Ohio St. 52, overruled.)
{¶ 1} Appellee, Rhodell Washington, was adjudicated delinquent on two separate counts of rape, and was placed on intensive probation. On September 4, 1992, the date of the rape, Rhodell Washington was eight years old, as were the victims, Camille Pearman and Ashley Anderson. The codefendant, William Little, age twelve, was separately tried.
{¶ 2} On December 15, 1992, the Juvenile Division of the court of common pleas conducted an inquiry hearing at which appellee reluctantly admitted to an intake mediator that he had anal intercourse with Camille and Ashley. Despite appellee’s young age, the Juvenile Division determined to make the complaint an official filing since appellee showed no remorse for the rapes. The Cleveland Police Department filed a two-count formal complaint against appellee, Rhodell Washington, which alleged he raped Camille Pearman and Ashley Anderson, purposely compelling them to submit to such sexual conduct by force or threat of force, in violation of
{¶ 4} Camille’s mother, Victoria Pearman, testified that she learned of the incident from a neighbor and then questioned her daughter. Camille related to her mother the same set of facts which Camille testified to at trial.
{¶ 5} Ashley Anderson testified that on September 4, 1992, appellee was playing with Little. Ashley was also given anatomically correct dolls to aid in her testimony. She stated that appellee touched her private part without asking her permission. She stated that it hurt when appellee touched her. Ashley also stated that she was afraid of appellee on that day. When her mother found out what happened, she was beaten.
{¶ 6} Ashley’s mother testified that appellee’s father contacted her about the incident and stated that his son had something to tell her. Appellee told Ashley’s mother “that he had done it too.” Upon returning home, she questioned her daughter. Ashley did not want to tell her, so she hit her several times until Ashley related the incident.
{¶ 7} The state then presented Alan Maragliano, a social worker at University Hospitals. Maragliano testified that he conversed with both girls, Ashley and Camille, when they were brought into the hospital. He testified that the girls were reluctant to describe the sexual conduct, but did state the two boys took off their shirts and dropped their pants.
{¶ 8} Cleveland Police Officer Pamela Berg from the Sex Crimes and Child Abuse Unit testified that she interviewed appellee who, after being advised of his legal rights, admitted in the presence of one of his parents that he inserted his penis into the rectums of both girls. The state then rested. Defense counsel moved for acquittal which was denied by the trial court, and the defense rested.
{¶ 9} The trial court thereafter found the allegations of rape proved beyond a reasonable doubt and adjudged appellee delinquent. Appellee was placed on intensive probation, he and his parents were ordered into the pre-adolescent sex offender’s program, and his father was ordered into drug rehabilitation.
{¶ 10} The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s finding that appellee was delinquent. The court of appeals held (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding, and (2) that a rebuttable presumption existed that appellee was incapable of committing rape because he was under age fourteen, and that the state failed to rebut this presumption.
{¶ 11} This matter is now before this court upon an allowance of a discretionary appeal.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Eleanore E. Hilow, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
James A. Draper, Cuyahoga County Public Defender and Mark A. Spadaro, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J.
{¶ 12} The issues before this court are whether a rebuttable presumption exists that a child under the age of fourteen is incapable of committing the crime of
{¶ 13} In determining the legal sufficiency of the state’s evidence, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573; State v. Waddy (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 424, 430, 588 N.E.2d 819, 825. The weight and credibility of the evidence are best left to the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 39 O.O.2d 366, 227 N.E.2d 212, paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶ 14}
“(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.”
{¶ 15}
“‘Sexual conduct’ means vaginal intercourse between a male and female, and anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus, regardless of sex. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 16} In the present case, appellee was indicted as follows:
“[Rhodell Washington did] unlawfully engage in sexual conduct with another *** a person who was not his spouse at the time, the said Rhodell Washington purposely compelled [the others] *** to submit to such sexual conduct by force or threat of force ***.”
At trial, Camille Pearman testified that appellee inserted his penis into her rectum causing her pain. Pamela Berg testified appellee admitted inserting his penis into the rectums of both girls. Both Ashley and Camille testified they were afraid of appellee at the time the sexual incidents occurred. Camille testified that appellee had not threatened her, but he did nothing to help when Little made the threats to them.
{¶ 17} Upon viewing the foregoing evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the state, we conclude that any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellee penetrated, however slightly, the rectums of both girls with his penis which, pursuant to
{¶ 19} While this court did mention this common-law rule in a more recent case, In re M.D. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 149, 527 N.E.2d 286, the issue of the rule’s viability was not before the court in that case and it was mentioned only in dicta. Furthermore, the facts in that case are distinguishable from the present forced sexual conduct, as the children in In re M.D. were merely “playing doctor” when a twelve-year-old girl directed two five-year olds to perform a sexual act. Thus, In re M.D. is not binding on this court as to the issue of whether such a presumption exists.
{¶ 20} Accordingly, we conclude that a child under the age of fourteen is capable of committing rape (Williams v. State [1846], 14 Ohio 222 and Hiltabiddle v. State [1878], 35 Ohio St. 52, overruled), and that, in the present case, sufficient evidence existed to support the trial court’s finding that appellee committed rape.
{¶ 21} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK and COOK, JJ., concur.
WRIGHT and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent.