State v. CobiaState v. Cobia
{¶1} Ray Cobia was convicted of sexual battery, impersonating a pоlice officer and child enticement. The convictions arose from a sexual encounter with a 17-year-old woman that he had met on a chat line. Rather than pay the teenager for sex as he had indicated to her he would on the phone, Mr. Cobia falsеly told her he was a police officer, and, under the state‘s theory, thereby coerced her into having sex with him.
{¶2} There are two primary issues that are dispositive of this appeal. The first involves the child-enticement statute. While this appeal was pending, the Ohio Suрreme Court found the statute unconstitutional. As a result, that conviction must be reversed. The second issue involves the admission of “other acts” evidence. The trial court allowed evidence of a 2004 incident where Mr. Cobia had coerced a woman into having sex with him by sаying that he was a police officer. We find that such evidence was impermissible other-acts evidence under
I. Two Victims Testify at Trial
{¶3} Asia Anderson testified that she met Ray Cobia in July 2013, on a chat line typically used by individuals wishing to exchange sex for money. The two reached an understanding about the price, and Mr. Cobia came to Ms. Anderson‘s apartment. The apartment was divided in half with separate entrances. During the day in question, Ms. Anderson was on her side of the apartment, and her mother, five-year-old brother and one-year-old son were on the other side.
{¶4} When Mr. Cobia arrived, Ms. Anderson tried to increase the price that had been discussed on the phone. According to Ms. Anderson‘s trial testimony, Mr. Cobia became “cocky,” “arrogant,” and “rude.” Unwilling to accept the $50 offered by Mr. Cobia, she changed her mind about having sex with him. At that point, Mr. Cobia
{¶5} Ms. Anderson performed oral sex on Mr. Cobia and then the two attempted vaginal sex. The encounter culminated with Mr. Cobia ejaculating on a towel. Mr. Cobia left without paying.
{¶6} Within minutes of his departure, Ms. Anderson telephoned Mr. Cobia “to ask him why that had to happen that way?” According to her trial testimony, Mr. Cobia said that he was a District 4 police officer and that she was going to be arrested for prostitution. At this point, Ms. Anderson says she “got really nervous” and called 911 to report that she had been raped.
{¶7} At trial, defense counsel рointed out numerous inconsistencies in the stories that Ms. Anderson told prior to trial and her trial testimony. After the incident, Ms. Anderson called 911 and reported that Mr. Cobia had come to her apartment to check her thermostat and had told her, “If you don‘t have sex with me you are going to jail.” She admitted at trial that this was not true. Defense counsel also pointed out that she had told the nurse at the hospital that she had been threatened with a gun and that Mr. Cobia had told her that he was going to come back and hurt her family. She admitted at trial that Mr. Cоbia had not said these things, but maintained that she did feel threatened by him. She also told investigators that Mr. Cobia had telephoned her after the encounter but admitted at trial she was the one who placed the call.
{¶8} Ms. Anderson was not the only one who testified at trial abоut an unwanted sexual encounter with Mr. Cobia. The very first witness called by the state
II. Pleas and a Guilty Verdict
{¶9} For his 2013 acts, Mr. Cobia was indicted for one count of impersonating a police officer, two сounts of rape, two counts of sexual battery, and two counts of child enticement. Mr. Cobia entered guilty pleas to the two counts of child enticement in exchange for an agreed sentence of one year. He proceeded to trial on the remaining counts. The jury found him guilty of impersonating a police officer and one count of sexual battery, but was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining counts.
{¶10} On appeal, he presents five assignments of error. He contends that the trial court erred in admitting other-аcts evidence and in failing to make the required sentencing findings and calculate his jail-time credit. And he challenges his trial
III. Analysis
{¶11} We discharge Mr. Cobia on his child-enticement convictions, because the child-enticement statute,
A. The Child-Enticement Statute is Unconstitutionally Broad
{¶12} We address first, and sustain, Mr. Cobia‘s second assignment of error, challenging the constitutionality of his child-enticement convictions. While this appeal was pending, the Ohio Supreme Court deсided State v. Romage, 138 Ohio St.3d 390, 2014-Ohio-783, 7 N.E.3d 1156, holding that ”
B. The Admission of Other-Acts Evidence was Prejudicial Error
{¶13} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Cobia contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting testimony concerning his 2004 convictions for impersonating a peace officer and sexual battery. We sustain the assignment of error upon our determination that the сourt abused its discretion in admitting this evidence, and that Mr. Cobia was prejudiced.
{¶15}
{¶16} The trial court submitted the charges against Mr. Cobia to the jury with a limiting instruction that the evidence concerning Mr. Cobia‘s 2004 offenses could only be considered for the purpose of deciding his “intent, purpоse, or plan” to commit the charged offenses and his “identity” as the perpetrator of those offenses, and not for the
{¶17} Here, the state argues that evidence concerning Mr. Cobia‘s 2004 offenses was admissible other-acts evidence, because it showed a pattern of conduct that was probative of his identity as the perpetrator of the charged offenses. The two crimes were so similar, contends the state, that they constitute a “behavioral fingerprint” that establishes Mr. Cobia‘s identity as the perpetrator of the 2013 crimes.
{¶18} Other-acts evidence may be admitted “as evidence of identity ‘either because the other act is part and parcel of the plan to commit the charged crime or because the other act is so similar to the crime charged and sufficiently idiosyncratic that it tends to prove the same person committed both acts.’ ” State v. Kelly, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140112, 2014-Ohio-5565, quoting State v. Morris, 9th Dist. Medina No. 09CA0022-M, 2012-Ohio-6151, ¶ 18, aff‘d, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5052. But here, Mr. Cobia‘s identity was not in question. There was no disрute that he was the individual who had engaged in the sexual encounter with Ms. Anderson that was at issue at trial. The only questions were whether the act was consensual, and whether he had impersonated a police officer. Thus, contrary to the state‘s theory, the 2004 offensе should not have been admitted to establish identity. See Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d at 73, 330 N.E.2d 720.
{¶19} The state also suggests in passing that the prior incident was admissible to show Mr. Cobia‘s motive. To establish motive, other-acts evidence “should demonstrate that the accused possesses a specific reason to сommit the crime alleged.” See State v. Johnson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23508, 2011-Ohio-1133, ¶ 55. Thus, if the state argues that a defendant committed murder to cover up an earlier crime, evidence of that earlier crime may be admitted to show the motive
{¶20} The jury was given a limiting instruction, and a jury is presumed to have followed the court‘s instructions. But here, there was no permissible purpose for which the jury could consider the other-acts evidence. And given the weaknesses in the state‘s case, the submission to the jury of evidence concerning the strikingly similar offenses committed by Mr. Cobia in 2004 presented a substantial danger that the jury would base its verdicts not on the evidence of his culpability in the 2013 offenses, but on its belief that if he did it in 2004, he did it in 2013. This is the inference forbidden by
{¶21} We further conclude that Mr. Cobia was prejudiced. In determining whether to grant a new trial based on the erroneous admissiоn of other-acts evidence, a reviewing court “must consider both the impact of the offending evidence on the verdict and the strength of the remaining evidence after the tainted evidence is removed from the record.” State v. Morris, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5052, syllabus; Kelley at ¶ 16.
{¶22} The case against Mr. Cobia depended entirely on the testimony of the victim, and her credibility was significantly undermined at trial. Therefore, we cannot say that evidence concerning Mr. Cobia‘s 2004 offenses did not impact the jury‘s
IV. The Remaining Assignments of Error are Moot
{¶23} Our disposition of Mr. Cobia‘s first and second assignments of error renders moot the challenges advanced in the balance of his assignments of error, to his trial counsel‘s effectiveness, the trial court‘s sentencing errors, and the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. We, therefore, do not reach the merits of those assignments of error.
V. Conclusion
{¶24} Because
Judgment accordingly.
CUNNINGHAM, P.J., and HENDON, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.