Skip to main content

State v. See

Citations

  • 2020 Ohio 2923

Syllabus

RAPE – SEXUAL BATTERY – GROSS SEXUAL IMPOSITION –EVIDENCE/WITNESS/TRIAL – EVID.R. 403(A) – PHOTOGRAPHS – HEARSAY – EVID.R. 803(2) – HARMLESS ERROR – COUNSEL – SENTENCING: Defendant's conviction for rape of a victim younger than 13 years old was based upon sufficient evidence where the victim's testimony, despite not fitting the time period for the offense alleged in the indictment, enabled any rational trier of fact to find all of the essential elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court did not commit plain error in admitting a victim's testimony regarding her post-rape mental-health issues where the probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice because the defense used her testimony to support its theory that the victim fabricated the allegations of sexual abuse due to a decline in her mental and emotional health. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of the victims depicting what they looked like at the time of the offenses where the probative value of the photographs was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice: the photographs demonstrated the youth of the victims when the offenses occurred, thereby rebutting the defense's contention that the victims' testimony was not credible because they kept silent or denied the abuse for years. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting a hearsay statement under the excited-utterance exception in Evid.R. 803(2) where the hearsay statement lacked spontaneity and was made after the opportunity for reflective thought but, any error was harmless because the statement was cumulative in nature and the declarant was subject to cross-examination regarding the statement. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting a hearsay statement where the witness testified to the declarant's out-of-court statement, the statement was offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and no hearsay exce

Judges: Crouse

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.