State v. Solorio

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 3749

Syllabus

GROSS SEXUAL IMPOSITION – BRADY VIOLATION – COUNSEL – EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT – SUFFICIENCY – EXPERT TESTIMONY – PLAIN ERROR – JURY INSTRUCTIONS: The state's delayed disclosure of exculpatory evidence, in the form of the victim's previous grand jury testimony, did not violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), where defense counsel was given the evidence in advance of the victim's testimony at trial and defense counsel ably cross-examined the victim on the inconsistencies in her testimonies. Defendant failed to establish plain error where defendant failed to demonstrate that the time periods alleged in the indictment spanned so broadly so as to prevent him from effectively defending himself and where the trial court's jury instructions tracked nearly verbatim the Ohio Jury Instructions. Defendant's convictions for six counts of gross sexual imposition were not against the weight or sufficiency of the evidence where the precise dates on which the acts took place were not elements of the crimes and the child victim gave detailed testimony about each instance of gross sexual imposition. The trial court did not commit plain error in admitting expert testimony where defendant presents on appeal no argument as to how either witness failed to meet the requirements of Evid.R. 702 and where the court allowed defense counsel to cross-examine one expert about the contents of an email sent to her by the prosecution that was explained as making sure that the expert's report met the requirements of Crim.R. 16(K). Defendant cannot establish that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel where the failure to call an expert witness, to further question and challenge prospective jurors, to object to statements that were not hearsay, to object to leading questions on direct examination of a child witness, and to object to testimony where another witness testified to the same matter did not prejudice defendant.