State v. Moore

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 1671

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to hear the child victim's statements during a recorded interview at a child-advocacy center about specific sex acts the appellant performed on her. The record supports a finding that those statements were admissible under the hearsay exception provided by Evid.R. 803(4). The trial court's admission of other statements by the child during the interview constituted harmless error. The trial court erred in allowing the victim's mother and the victim's father's girlfriend to testify about sexual-abuse disclosures the victim made after the last incident. The record fails to establish that the victim's statements qualified as excited utterances, making the witnesses' testimony hearsay. Again, however, the trial court's admission of this testimony was harmless error. The victim testified herself at trial and provided much more extensive and detailed testimony about the sex acts the appellant performed over a period of years. The trial court's admission of the victim's statements to a police officer did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the victim testified at trial and was subject to full and effective cross examination. The trial court did not err in allowing leading questioning of the victim about anal intercourse allegations. Cumulative error did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial. The appellant's convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. The trial court did not err in imposing statutory maximum sentences for gross sexual imposition and rape. The appellant's maximum sentences do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Judgment affirmed.