State v. Jordan

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 2708

Syllabus

Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of a number of counts of rape, attempted rape, and gross sexual imposition involving his two daughters. The expert testimony of a pediatric psychologist did not constitute impermissible witness vouching. Also, there was an adequate foundation to allow the admission of a psychological test administered to one victim, and there was no other error regarding this portion of the expert's testimony. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that statements made by a victim during a forensic interview were admissible under Evid.R. 803(4), because the primary purpose of the statements was for the diagnosis and treatment of the victim. There is, with one exception, no error regarding the testimony of the lead detective. The exception was that the detective presented hearsay testimony from the victims' mother regarding statements made to her by the victims. This error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the trial court did not err by the admission of cumulative testimony. Judgment affirmed.