Skip to main content

State v. Williams

Citations

  • 2017 Ohio 8898
  • 101 N.E.3d 547

Syllabus

RAPE - EVIDENCE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - CONFRONTATION CLAUSE - HEARSAY - COUNSEL - PROSECUTOR - SENTENCING: In a trial for two counts of rape of a child under the age of ten, the admission of statements made by the child-victims at the Mayerson Center did not violate the Confrontation Clause because they were made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment, and therefore, were not testimonial and while the statements were hearsay, they were properly admitted as statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment pursuant to Evid.R. 803(4). The trial court erred in allowing mother to testify as to what the children had told her about what defendant had done to them, because the statements were hearsay but defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the statements because evidence containing the same information was properly admitted through other sources. Defendant's convictions for two counts of rape of a child under ten were based upon sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the testimony of the victims, their interviews at the Mayerson Center, which were admitted into evidence, and the testimony of the Mayerson Center social worker about what the children had said showed that defendant had digitally penetrated the vaginas of both child-victims. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to cross-examine the child-victims, because the decision was sound trial strategy and defendant had instructed counsel not to cross-examine the children. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to an isolated comment made by the prosecutor at the conclusion of the testimony of a child-victim that he was \proud of her\ where the comment was innocuous and the decision not to object was a matter of sound trial strategy. The prosecutor did not commit misconduct in making a single, encouraging comment to a child-victim at the conclusion of her difficult testimony considering the context of the comment

Judges: Mock

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 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.