State v. Rowland

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 2984

Syllabus

Appellant's rape conviction was supported by sufficient evidence where the victim's testimony was sufficient to establish the element of penetration. It is within the trial court's discretion to respond to the jury's question by referring the jury to instructions already provided. The trial court did not err in issuing a Howard charge to the jury where the jury indicated it was deadlocked and the charge comported with the goals of Howard. The trial court did not err in allowing the state to present rebuttal testimony rather than cross-examining appellant where the appellant could not show prejudice. Evidence of appellant's post-arrest silence was admissible where there was no evidence in the record that appellant had been mirandized prior to the silence. An out of court statement offered to explain a police officer's conduct while investigating the crime is admissible non-hearsay. Sentences were not cruel and unusual punishment where his convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, and the individual sentences were not grossly disproportionate to their respective offenses.