State v. Howard

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 3870

Syllabus

Forcible rape forcible gross sexual imposition sufficiency of the evidence digital penetration manifest weight of the evidence prosecutorial misconduct denial of continuance meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant's convictions of three counts of forcible rape and one count of forcible gross sexual imposition are affirmed. There was sufficient evidence in the record to support convictions for forcible-sexual offenses. The defendant took the victim's clothes off and got on top of her in his bed. He held an authoritative position over her, because he was like a \godfather\ figure to her. The victim did not fight defendant off because of his size and she felt paralyzed. He turned her on her stomach and penetrated her vagina. Furthermore, the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The prosecutor's comments and questions about \DNA\ and \semen\ were improper, because there was no evidence introduced at trial about DNA or semen. However, based on the totality of the evidence in the record, we cannot say that these improper comments and questions affected the outcome of defendant's trial. Defendant argues that the denial of his continuance deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, because he was prohibited from presented corroborating evidence regarding his erectile dysfunction. The record shows that he requested the last-minute continuance two years after he was indicted in this case, and we cannot say that the court abused its discretion by denying this request. Because defendant's counsel's performance was not deficient, as shown by the resolution of his other assignments of error, we cannot say that counsel was ineffective.