State v. Fulmer

Citations

• 2026 Ohio 2143

Syllabus

Rape; R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight; Hearsay; Evid.R. 803(4); Medical Diagnosis Hearsay Exception; Mistrial; Plain Error; Crim.R. 33; Rape Shield Law; R.C. 2907.02; Ex Post Facto; Retroactivity; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Defendant-appellant's rape conviction affirmed. Defendant-appellant's rape conviction was not against the sufficiency or manifest weight of the evidence. The victims' Child Advocacy Center (\CAC\) interviews were properly introduced as an Evid.R. 803(4) medical diagnosis and treatment hearsay exception. The trial court had no duty to sua sponte declare a mistrial after an outburst when he properly sustained an objection and provided curative instructions to the jury. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's motion to continue sentencing when there was sufficient time to file a motion for a new trial. The trial court did not err by applying the rape shield law as it applied to evidence of a victim's sexual conduct. The trial court's sentencing was not contrary to Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution or the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Defendant-appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.