State v. Kohler

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 3302

Syllabus

Evid.R. 404(B) other-acts evidence admissibility intrinsic evidence background information explains the circumstances context common scheme or plan evidence sexual battery R.C. 2907.03(A)(11) Tier III sex offender R.C. 2950.01 R.C. 2950.01(B)(2) exceptions lack of consent custodial authority. Evidence that explained the circumstances or background of the events leading to the charged offenses and provided context for the relationships of the parties involved was not subject to Evid.R. 404(B) and was properly admitted by the trial court. Even assuming the disputed evidence was subject to Evid.R. 404(B), the other-acts evidence was admissible as common scheme or plan evidence whose probative value was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice. The jury found defendant-appellant, who was working as a corrections officer at all relevant times, engaged in sexual conduct with two inmates at the correctional facility where he worked and, therefore, rendered a verdict that he was guilty of sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(11). Based upon the established authoritarian relationship between defendant-appellant as a corrections officer and the victims — his inmates — the jury's guilty verdict impliedly determined that the sexual conduct occurred without the victims' consent. Thus, it was not plain error for the trial court to designate defendant-appellant as a Tier III sex offender under R.C. 2950.01.