State v. Philpot

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 2596

Syllabus

Appellant's convictions for gross sexual imposition were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. There is no requirement that there be direct testimony regarding sexual arousal or gratification. The jury was free to infer what appellant's motivation was in making physical contact with the victims. Further, although appellant alleged the trial court admitted improper hearsay, he failed to identify which statements he believes were objectionable. Appellant failed to comply with App.R. 12(A)(2) and 16(A)(7) by failing to identify the purported errors and to support any argument with citations to the record. In addition, appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. The extent and scope of examination or cross-examination clearly falls within the ambit of trial strategy. Appellant's remaining arguments are vague, conclusory, and unsupported by the record.