State v. Dunn

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 4413

Syllabus

Gross sexual imposition sexual imposition force breaking and entering sufficiency of evidence manifest weight of the evidence speedy trial. The evidence was insufficient to support a gross sexual imposition conviction against the first victim because it lacked the element of force. Although the defendant grabbed or gripped the victim's breast, it was done over her clothing, he did not manipulate her clothing, he did not tell her to do anything or prevent her from doing something, and he did not threaten her. The defendant's action of grabbing the victim's breast was merely the force of the act itself. However, the evidence was sufficient to support a sexual imposition conviction, which does not require force the gross sexual imposition is modified to sexual imposition. The sexual imposition conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence was sufficient to support a gross sexual imposition conviction against the second victim. The element of force was demonstrated through the circumstances surrounding the sexual conduct, which included the defendant previously committing unwelcome sexual contact with the defendant and the victim trying to get away from him as he trespassed on her property. The convictions for gross sexual imposition and breaking and entering were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant's statutory speedy trial rights were not violated. The triple count provision of the speedy trial statute did not apply to the time the defendant was in custody under this case and another separate case Dunn had three different attorneys throughout the proceedings, which caused delay numerous pretrials were continued at the defendant's request the defense never responded to the state's reciprocal discovery request and the court's administrative Covid protocols caused delay.