State v. EadsState v. Eads
Engel & Martin, and Joshua A. Engel, for appellant.
OPINION
PIPER, J.
{1} Appellant, Derrick L. Eads, appeals his conviction in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas after a jury found him guilty of one count of third-degree felony gross sexual imposition in violation of
{2} On December 18, 2023, the Warren County Grand Jury returned an 18-count indictment charging Eads with four counts of rape, four counts of sexual battery, nine counts of gross sexual imposition, and one count of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles. The charges arose after it was alleged Eads had sexually abused four young girls, T.C., K.E., E.E., and E.M., over a six-year period between 2014 and 2020. The three counts related to E.M. were later dismissed by the State.
{3} On September 18, 2024, the matter proceeded to a three-day jury trial on the remaining 15 counts levied against Eads. Those 15 remaining counts consisted of four counts of rape, four counts of sexual battery, and seven counts of gross sexual imposition. During that trial, the jury heard testimony from a variety of witnesses. This included testimony from the three alleged victims of those 15 remaining counts, T.C., K.E., and E.E. As part of this testimony, K.E. described an incident where Eads had used both his hands and his penis to touch her thighs at a time when she was less than 13 years of age.
{4} On September 20, 2024, the jury returned a verdict finding Eads guilty of just one of those remaining 15 counts, Count 13. As set forth in the indictment, Count 13 charged Eads with third-degree felony gross sexual imposition in violation of
That on or about 11/10/2015 thru 11/09/2019, and at the location of 7511 Somerset Dr., Mason, OH 45040, in a bedroom, Defendant, Derrick L. Eads, did have sexual contact with K.E., not his spouse, when K.E. was less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knew the age of K.E. contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.
{5} On November 6, 2024, the trial court held a sentencing hearing where it
Eads’ Appeal and Single Assignment of Error
{6} On November 12, 2024, Eads filed a notice of appeal. Following briefing, on July 3, 2025, Eads’ appeal was submitted to this court for consideration. Eads’ appeal now properly before this court for decision, Eads has raised one assignment of error for review. In his single assignment of error, Eads argues his conviction of Count 13, third-degree felony gross sexual imposition in violation of
Manifest Weight Standard of Review
{7} “[A] manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to the state‘s burden of persuasion.” State v. Casey, 2024-Ohio-689, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26. “To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Lewis, 2020-Ohio-3762, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.), citing State v. Wilks, 2018-Ohio-1562, ¶ 168. This court will overturn a conviction on manifest-weight grounds “only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily in favor of acquittal.” State v. Kaufhold, 2020-Ohio-3835, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.). “This may occur only when there is unanimous disagreement with the jury‘s verdict.” State v. Palma, 2025-Ohio-1318, ¶ 9.
R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)
{8} As noted above, Eads was convicted of Count 13, third-degree felony gross sexual imposition in violation of
Eads’ Argument and Analysis
{9} Eads does not dispute that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to convict him of Count 13, third-degree felony gross sexual imposition in violation of
{11} In so holding, we note that “[i]nconsistencies in the evidence alone do not mean that a decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” State v. Gregory, 2023-Ohio-1700, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.). We also note that, as the trier of fact, the jury was free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony offered by each of the witnesses who appeared before it. State v. Spencer, 2019-Ohio-2165, ¶ 27 (12th Dist.). This is because “the decision whether, and to what extent, to credit the testimony of particular witnesses is within the peculiar competence of the factfinder, who has seen and heard the witness.” State v. Bedsole, 2022-Ohio-3693, ¶ 35 (12th Dist.). This includes the testimony offered from each of the three alleged victims who testified at trial, T.C., K.E., and E.E. More specifically, K.E.‘s testimony describing an incident where Eads had used both his hands and his penis to touch her thighs at a time when she was less than 13 years of age.
Conclusion
{13} For the reasons outlined above, and having now overruled Eads’ single assignment of error, Eads’ appeal challenging his conviction for Count 13, third-degree felony gross sexual imposition in violation of
{14} Judgment affirmed.
BYRNE, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
The assignment of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Warren County Court of Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.
/s/ Matthew R. Byrne, Presiding Judge
/s/ Robin N. Piper, Judge
/s/ Mike Powell, Judge