State v. Sims

[Cite as State v. Sims, 2023-Ohio-1179.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ATHENS COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case
No. 21CA15

v. :

GRANT ADRIAN MYQUAL SIMS, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendant-Appellant. :

________________________________________________________________

APPEARANCES:

Kort Gatterdam and Erik P. Henry, Columbus, Ohio, for appellant.

Keller J. Blackburn, Athens County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Merry M. Saunders, Athens County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,
Athens, Ohio, for appellee.
________________________________________________________________
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT
DATE JOURNALIZED:4-3-23
ABELE, J.

{¶1} This is an appeal from an Athens County Common Pleas

Court judgment of conviction and sentence. A jury found Grant

Adrian Myqual Sims, defendant below and appellant herein, guilty

of two counts of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and

R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c).

{¶2} Appellant assigns the following errors for review:

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SEVER THE RAPE CHARGES
INTO SEPARATE TRIALS AND VIOLATED
Athens App. No. 21CA15 2

APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS AND FAIR TRIAL
RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES AND
OHIO CONSTITUTIONS.”

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING HEARSAY
STATEMENTS AND VIOLATED APPELLANT’S RIGHTS
TO DUE PROCESS AND TO A FAIR TRIAL AS
GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO
CONSTITUTIONS.”

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING MEDICAL
RECORDS AND EVIDENCE COLLECTION KITS THEREBY
VIOLATING APPELLANT’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS
AND TO A FAIR TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY THE
UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS.”

FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“THE ADMISSION OF OTHER ACTS TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE REGARDING OFFENSES TO WHICH
APPELLANT PLED GUILTY TO VIOLATED RULES 403
AND 404 AND APPELLANT’S RIGHTS TO DUE
PROCESS AND TO A FAIR TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY
THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS.”

FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING RECORDS
FROM THE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
THEREBY VIOLATING APPELLANT’S RIGHTS TO DUE
PROCESS AND TO A FAIR TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY
THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS.”

SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S RIGHTS
TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL WHEN IT
ENTERED A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BASED ON
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION
OF APPELLANT’S RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED
STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS.”
SEVENTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
Athens App. No. 21CA15 3

“THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED A SENTENCE CLEARLY
AND CONVINCINGLY CONTRARY TO LAW, THE RECORD
CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY DOES NOT SUPPORT
THE TRIAL COURT’S SENTENCING FINDINGS, AND
THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING
CONTRARY TO R.C. 2929.11 AND R.C. 2929.12
AND APPELLANT’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS
GUARANTEED BY SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE
OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.

{¶3} This appeal involves two separate encounters that

occurred between appellant and J.K. and K.H.1 Appellant does not

deny sexual encounters with the individuals, but instead

contends that the encounters were consensual.

{¶4} On October 24, 2018, appellant met J.R. at a hookah

lounge. The next day, J.R. told friends she had been sexually

assaulted, and later sought an examination at a local hospital.

{¶5} On September 18, 2019 or the early morning hours of

September 19, 2019, appellant met K.H. after she spent many

hours drinking alcohol. When K.H. awoke the next day, she

thought she had been raped and visited a hospital for

examination. The results of each examination identified

appellant as the individual who had engaged in sexual contact

1
Appellant also was charged with rape that involved a third
individual, K.K. The jury found appellant not guilty of this
offense. We therefore do not include additional details of
appellant’s encounter with K.K. unless relevant to appellant’s
assignments of error.
Athens App. No. 21CA15 4

with J.R. and K.H.

{¶6} On February 24, 2020, an Athens County Grand Jury

returned an indictment that charged appellant with (1) three

counts of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), (2) one

count of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c), (3) one

count of theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), and (4) one

count of identity fraud, in violation of R.C. 2913.49(B)(1).

Appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges.

{¶7} Subsequently, appellant filed a motion to sever the

charges for trial. Appellant asserted that trying the cases

together, with three different victims, would cause undue

prejudice and allow the state to, in effect, introduce “other

acts” evidence. Appellant argued that trying the offenses

together would cause him to suffer the following unfair

prejudice: (1) the jury would hear “inflammatory accusations”

that three individuals accused appellant of rape before hearing

any evidence, which would “create an image of an individual

predisposed to preying on women”; (2) the facts regarding “each

incident contain slight similarities that present a strong

likelihood the jury will confuse the incidents”; and (3)

appellant’s “ability to testify may be severely hampered.”

Appellant further asserted that the state could not overcome his

showing of prejudice because the state could not establish that

the evidence regarding the joined offenses would be admissible
Athens App. No. 21CA15 5

as other-acts evidence, or that the evidence concerning each

offense is simple and direct.

{¶8} The state, however, asserted that trying the offenses

together would not prejudice appellant’s right to a fair trial.

The state disputed appellant’s claim that joining the offenses

would impede his ability to testify and claimed that the

evidence would be simple and direct.

{¶9} After consideration, the trial court overruled

appellant’s motion to sever the charges into separate trials and

stated that appellant “failed to furnish sufficient information

to establish that his rights would be prejudiced by trying

separate counts together at trial.”

{¶10} On July 20 to July 23, 2020, the trial court held a

jury trial. Before the trial began, appellant pleaded guilty to

counts five and six: (1) theft, in violation of R.C.

2913.02(A)(1); and (2) identity fraud, in violation of R.C.

2913.49(B)(1).

{¶11} At trial, J.R. testified that, while she talked to a

friend at a local hookah lounge, she noticed appellant enter the

lounge. After they spoke and exchanged contact information,

appellant unexpectedly kissed her. J.R. indicated she “was

extremely uncomfortable and embarrassed.”

{¶12} As J.R. prepared to leave the lounge, appellant asked

her for a ride and she agreed. When they reached appellant’s
Athens App. No. 21CA15 6

residence, which happened to be very near to the lounge,

appellant told J.R. to pull into a driveway. Once in the

driveway, appellant “insisted” J.R. move to the vehicle’s

backseat. J.R. stated she became scared and did not exit the

vehicle because “there would have been nowhere to go to.”

Additionally, J.R. stated that her car belonged to her

grandfather and she did not feel she could abandon it.

{¶13} After J.R. followed appellant’s instructions and

crawled into the backseat, appellant removed her pants and

undergarments, then began to perform cunnilingus and inserted

his fingers into her vagina. J.R. told appellant “no” and that

she did not want him to do that, but appellant did not stop.

J.R. related that she “was panicking,” her “body shut down,” and

she was crying. Appellant then began to place his penis inside

her vagina.

{¶14} At that point, a car stopped next to them in the

driveway and appellant exited. Before he did go, he told J.R.

that “he thought that it might have been a kink for [her] to say

no.” J.R. responded, however, that she “really did mean no.”

J.R. then pulled up her pants, returned to the front seat and

drove away. As she drove home, she stated she “was in a state

of shock.”

{¶15} J.R. explained that she went to work the day after the

incident, but did not remember going to work and could not focus
Athens App. No. 21CA15 7

on her job. When a co-worker asked J.R. if she was okay, J.R.

said she was not and told the co-worker that she should have

called off work.

{¶16} When the state introduced into evidence a copy of

Facebook messages that J.R. exchanged with the manager of the

hookah lounge, appellant objected and claimed the messages are

hearsay. The state asserted, however, that the messages are

present sense impressions or excited utterances. The trial

court overruled appellant’s objection. J.R. then reviewed the

exhibit that contained a copy of her Facebook message to the

lounge owner, Maj. In the message, J.R. asked Maj if he could

“ban someone for [her],” and she “was just sexually assaulted.”

{¶17} The state also attempted to introduce into evidence

another Facebook message that J.R. exchanged with a friend.

After appellant objected, the trial court asked about the amount

of time that elapsed between the incident and J.R.’s messages,

and the state indicated that J.R. made the statements the next

day. The court then overruled the objection and J.R. testified

that on October 25, 2018 she messaged her friend that she “was

just sexually assaulted.”

{¶18} After J.R.’s testimony, the state informed the trial

court that it intended to present testimony and evidence

regarding J.R.’s medical records, and that appellant planned to

object to the admission of those records. Appellant argued that
Athens App. No. 21CA15 8

the medical records did not fall within any hearsay exception,

and instead, fell more within the realm of law enforcement

investigative effort than statements related to medical

treatment. The trial court, however, overruled the objection.

{¶19} At that point, registered Nurse Rachel Burns Carter

testified that she performed J.R.’s intake examination. During

her testimony, Carter read directly from J.R.’s incident

narrative and recited a direct quote from J.R. Appellant did

not object when Carter read directly from J.R.’s narrative.

After Carter obtained J.R.’s narrative, she began the evidence-

collection process. When the state introduced the sexual-

assault evidence-collection kit, appellant objected and wished

to “renew the objection with the same basis.” The court noted,

then overruled, appellant’s objection.

{¶20} K.H. testified that on September 18, 2019, she

celebrated a friend’s birthday and, throughout the night,

consumed multiple alcoholic beverages. K.H. stated that she

does not remember every part of the evening and does not

remember leaving the last bar she visited, but does remember

sitting on her porch listening to music. As K.H. sat on her

porch, appellant approached her and commented on the music and

“that’s really all that [K.H.] remember[s].” K.H. indicated

that she does not remember anything else except “[t]he next

thing” “is waking up the next day.”
Athens App. No. 21CA15 9

{¶21} K.H. testified that when she eventually awoke around

1:30 p.m., she “was completely naked” and “like covered in

piss.” When K.H. visited the bathroom she also discovered

bleeding from her anus. She then looked for her belongings and

discovered her purse had been rummaged through and her debit

card missing. K.H. then left her house and visited a

restaurant. As she waited in line at the restaurant, she told a

friend about the previous night’s events and stated, “I think I

got raped last night actually.” At that point, K.H. went home

to call her mother.

{¶22} The state next introduced into evidence a text message

from K.H. to her boss the day after the encounter. Appellant

objected and asserted the message constitutes inadmissible

hearsay, but the state argued that the statement is an excited

utterance. The trial court overruled appellant’s objection, but

determined the state could not introduce the printed text

message into evidence. The prosecutor then asked K.H. to read

her text message, “hey something really traumatic happened to me

last night and I do not (inaudible). Will you please work my

five to close tonight?” After she sent the text message, K.H.

visited the hospital.

{¶23} K.H. later discovered that someone had used her debit

card at multiple locations and spent approximately $1,500. The

state introduced evidence that appellant had used the debit
Athens App. No. 21CA15 10

card, but appellant objected regarding the specific locations

and the use of the debit card. In particular, appellant argued

that because he had pleaded guilty to theft and identity fraud,

any evidence regarding the debit card is not relevant. The

state asserted, however, that the evidence is relevant to show

how police apprehended appellant. The trial court agreed and

overruled appellant’s objection.

{¶24} After K.H.’s testimony, the state indicated that it

intended to present evidence regarding K.H.’s medical records.

Although appellant again argued that the medical records did not

fall within any hearsay exception, the trial court overruled the

objection. Registered Nurse Jennifer Young then testified that

on September 19, 2019, she performed K.H.’s sexual-assault

examination. During her testimony, Young read directly from

K.H.’s incident narrative and stated that it is a direct quote

from K.H. Appellant did not object.

{¶25} After the state presented the individual accounts of

each incident and each individual’s nurse’s testimony, the state

introduced testimony from forensic scientists who tested DNA

obtained from the medical kits. Shortly after Bureau of

Criminal Investigation forensic scientist Devonie Herdeman began

to testify, appellant objected to the BCI reports, as well as

the corresponding testimony, and asserted that because the

reports and testimony contain the words “offense” and “victim,”
Athens App. No. 21CA15 11

the use of those terms suggests “a rape has occurred and that

[appellant] did it.” Appellant also argued that the reports

constitute inadmissible hearsay and Evid.R. 803(8) prohibits the

reports because they are similar to a police officer’s report of

an investigation. The trial court, however, overruled

appellant’s objection. Herdeman and other BCI forensic

scientists then testified that the DNA obtained during the

medical examinations matched appellant’s DNA profile.

{¶26} The state next called to testify forensic toxicologist

Dr. George Behonick, who stated that K.H. had a .146% blood

ethanol concentration when submitted on September 19, 2019 at

5:00 p.m. Dr. Behonick also explained the effects alcohol has

on the nervous system and, as the blood-alcohol concentration

surpasses .3%, a person can appear to be “in a stupor” or

“comatose,” and the person’s memory impaired.

{¶27} Appellant testified in his defense and admitted he

engaged in sexual contact with J.R. and K.H., but maintained the

contact had been consensual. Appellant explained that he met

J.R. at the hookah lounge and thought they made a connection, so

he kissed her. When the lounge closed, he asked J.R. for a ride

home, and she agreed. When he and J.R. arrived in his driveway

he told J.R. he did not like the front seat and that he

“want[ed] to get in the backseat with [her],” J.R. agreed. Once

in the backseat, appellant told J.R. she looked beautiful and he
Athens App. No. 21CA15 12

wanted to kiss her. Appellant then engaged in oral sex with

J.R. and he thought “it was okay for us to have sex,” but when

he placed his penis on J.R., she began to cry and, when she

started to cry, he “immediately put [his] penis away.”

Appellant told J.R. that he was “sorry” if she thought it was

“too much.” According to appellant, J.R. responded, “no I just

feel like I’m a hoe.” Appellant said that he and J.R. then

exchanged contact information and J.R. left.

{¶28} The next day, appellant messaged J.R. to ask if he

left his marijuana inside her car. When J.R. did not

immediately respond, he called her. J.R. later messaged

appellant to ask where he thought he left his marijuana.

Appellant, however, eventually found his marijuana in his house

and then texted J.R. to let her know and to apologize for the

previous night.

{¶29} Appellant also testified that he met K.H. while he

urinated in an alley. Appellant claimed that K.H. tapped him on

the shoulder, invited him to her residence, and once at the

residence, he visited and exited the bathroom and K.H. was

“naked and ready to engage in sex.” Appellant stated that he

engaged in “anal, oral, [and] vaginal” sex with K.H.

{¶30} Appellant further stated that, after he engaged in

sexual relations, he used the bathroom. When he again exited

the bathroom and found K.H. asleep, he decided to leave the
Athens App. No. 21CA15 13

residence. Before doing so, he took K.H.’s debit card and cash.

{¶31} On July 23, 2021, after hearing the evidence and

counsels’ arguments, the jury found appellant (1) guilty of the

rape offense that involved J.R., (2) not guilty of an alleged

rape offense that involved K.K., (3) not guilty of the R.C.

2907.02(A)(2) rape offense that involved K.H., and (4) guilty of

the R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) rape offense that involved K.H.

{¶32} The trial court sentenced appellant to serve (1) 11

years in prison for each rape count, with a possible maximum

term of 16 years and 6 months, (2) 12 months for the theft

offense, and (3) 18 months for the identity fraud offense. The

court further ordered the sentences for the rape offenses and

the identity fraud offense to be served consecutively to one

another for a total minimum term of 23 years and 6 months, with

a maximum term of 29 years. This appeal followed.

I

{¶33} In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts

that the trial court erred by denying his Crim.R. 14 motion to

sever the rape charges, which involved three different victims,

into separate trials. In particular, appellant asserts that to

allow the cases to be tried together caused him prejudice

because it (1) permitted the state to introduce inadmissible

other-acts evidence that would not have been admissible if the

cases had been tried separately, (2) impacted his “right to
Athens App. No. 21CA15 14

testify” in that “he would be required to ‘testify as to all of

the allegations against him’ or risk the jurors questioning why

he would testify to some, but not all, of the allegations,” and

(3) included evidence regarding the three encounters that is not

simple or direct.

{¶34} The state argues that the trial court did not abuse

its discretion because it could have introduced evidence

regarding each occurrence as other-acts evidence or,

alternatively, the evidence regarding each crime is simple and

direct.

{¶35} Crim.R. 8(A) specifies that “[t]wo or more offenses

may be charged in the same indictment, information or complaint

in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged * *

* are of the same or similar character * * *.” The rule further

permits the joinder of offenses that “are based on the same act

or transaction, or are based on two or more acts or transactions

connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or

plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.”

{¶36} As a general rule, the law favors joinder and the

avoidance of multiple trials. E.g., State v. Gordon, 152 Ohio

St.3d 528, 2018-Ohio-259, 98 N.E.3d 251, ¶ 18. Joint trials

“conserve[] judicial and prosecutorial time, lessen[] the not

inconsiderable expenses of multiple trials, diminish[]

inconvenience to witnesses, and minimize[] the possibility of
Athens App. No. 21CA15 15

incongruous results in successive trials before different

juries.” State v. Thomas, 61 Ohio St.2d 223, 225, 400 N.E.2d

401 (1980); accord Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537,

113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993), quoting Richardson v.

Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 209, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987)

(joint trials “promote efficiency and ‘serve the interests of

justice by avoiding the scandal and inequity of inconsistent

verdicts’”). If, however, joinder prejudices a defendant,

Crim.R. 14 gives a trial court discretion to sever the trials:

“If it appears that a defendant * * * is prejudiced by a joinder

of offenses * * *, the court shall order an election or separate

trial of counts, * * *, or provide such other relief as justice

requires.”

{¶37} Appellate courts review trial court decisions

regarding a Crim.R. 14 motion to sever criminal charges under

the abuse of discretion standard. State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d

139, 2019-Ohio-4539, 140 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 106; State v. Hand, 107

Ohio St.3d 378, 2006-Ohio-18, 840 N.E.2d 151, ¶ 166. An abuse

of discretion implies that a court’s attitude is unreasonable,

arbitrary or unconscionable. “‘A decision is unreasonable if

there is no sound reasoning process that would support that

decision.’” Ford at ¶ 106, quoting AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River

Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157,

161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990). “[A]n ‘arbitrary’ decision is one
Athens App. No. 21CA15 16

made ‘without consideration of or regard for facts [or]

circumstances.’” State v. Beasley, 152 Ohio St.3d 470, 2018-

Ohio-16, 97 N.E.3d 474, ¶ 12, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 125

(10th Ed.2014), and citing Dayton ex rel. Scandrick v. McGee, 67

Ohio St.2d 356, 359, 423 N.E.2d 1095 (1981), quoting Black’s Law

Dictionary 96 (5th Ed.1979) (“arbitrary” means “‘without

adequate determining principle; * * * not governed by any fixed

rules or standard’”). An unconscionable decision is one

“showing no regard for conscience” or “affronting the sense of

justice, decency, or reasonableness.” Black’s Law Dictionary

(11th ed. 2019). An unconscionable decision also may be

characterized as “[s]hockingly unjust or unfair.” Black’s Law

Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Moreover, when reviewing for an

abuse of discretion, appellate courts must not substitute their

judgment for that of the trial court. E.g., State v. Grate, 164

Ohio St.3d 9, 2020-Ohio-5584, 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 187; In re Jane

Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137-138, 566 N.E.2d 1181 (1991).

{¶38} “A defendant who appeals the denial of relief bears a

heavy burden” to establish that a trial court abused its

discretion. Ford at ¶ 106. To establish that a trial court’s

refusal to sever a trial constitutes an abuse of discretion, a

defendant must establish that holding combined trials prejudiced

the defendant’s rights. Gordon at ¶ 21; State v. Schaim, 65

Ohio St.3d 51, 59, 600 N.E.2d 661 (1992). The test is
Athens App. No. 21CA15 17

whether a joint trial is so manifestly prejudicial that
the trial judge is required to exercise his or her
discretion in only one way — by severing the trial. * *
* A defendant must show clear, manifest and undue
prejudice and violation of a substantive right resulting
from failure to sever.

State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 89, 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990),

quoting United States v. Castro, 887 F.2d 988, 996 (9th Cir.

1989). A defendant must provide “the trial court with

sufficient information so that it [can] weigh the considerations

favoring joinder against the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”

State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340, 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981),

syllabus; accord Ford at ¶ 106. Consequently, “a trial court

does not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant severance

where the prejudicial aspects of joinder are too general and

speculative.” State v. Payne, 10th Dist. Franklin App. No.

02AP–723, 2003–Ohio–4891.

{¶39} If a defendant presents sufficient information to show

that joining offenses for trial will prejudice the defendant’s

rights, the state can overcome the defendant’s claim of

prejudicial joinder by showing either: (1) the state could have

introduced evidence of the joined offenses as other acts under

Evid.R. 404(B) (the other-acts test); or (2) the “evidence of

each crime joined at trial is simple and direct” (the joinder

test). E.g., State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 163, 555 N.E.2d

293 (1990). “‘The two tests are disjunctive, so that the
Athens App. No. 21CA15 18

satisfaction of one negates a defendant’s claim of prejudice

without consideration of the other.’” State v. Wright, 4th

Dist. Jackson No. 16CA3, 2017-Ohio-8702, ¶ 51, quoting State v.

Sullivan, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP–997, 2011–Ohio–6384, ¶

23. Accordingly, “‘[i]f the state can meet the joinder test, it

need not meet the stricter ‘other acts’ test.’” State v.

Johnson, 88 Ohio St.3d 95, 109, 723 N.E.2d 1054 (2000), quoting

State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 122, 580 N.E.2d 1 (1991).

{¶40} Evidence of joined offenses is simple and direct when

(1) the jury is capable of readily separating the proof required

for each offense; (2) the evidence is unlikely to confuse the

jurors, (3) the evidence is straightforward and easy to

understand; (4) the offenses involve different victims,

different incidents, and different witnesses; and (5) little

danger exists that the jury would improperly consider testimony

on one offense as corroborative of the other. State v.

Freeland, 4th Dist. No. 12CA3352, 2015-Ohio-3410, ¶ 14; accord

State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1838, 173 N.E.3d 567, ¶ 57 (2nd Dist.);

State v. Wright, 4th Dist. Jackson No. 16CA3, 2017-Ohio-8702, ¶

52; State v. Dantzler, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-907, 2015-

Ohio-3641, ¶ 23; State v. Clifford, 135 Ohio App.3d 207, 212,

733 N.E.2d 621 (1st Dist.1999). Furthermore, “‘Ohio appellate

courts routinely find no prejudicial joinder where the evidence

is presented in an orderly fashion as to the separate offenses
Athens App. No. 21CA15 19

or victims without significant overlap or conflation of proof.’”

State v. Echols, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102504, 2015-Ohio-5138,

¶ 16, quoting State v. Lewis, 6th Dist. No. L-09-1224, 2010-

Ohio-4202, ¶ 33.

{¶41} We additionally note that the purposes of the joinder

test are (1) “to prevent the finder of fact from confusing the

offenses,” State v. Varney, 4th Dist. Hocking No. 07CA18, 2008–

Ohio–5283, ¶ 19, and (2) “to prevent juries from combining the

evidence to convict” the defendant of multiple crimes, “instead

of carefully considering the proof offered for each separate

offense.” State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 362, 582 N.E.2d

972 (1992).

{¶42} In the case sub judice, we agree with the appellee

that the evidence of each crime joined at trial is simple and

direct. The prosecution presented the evidence that related to

each offense in a simple and direct manner, and separately

presented the circumstances of each individual’s encounter with

appellant. The state first presented J.K.’s testimony and the

testimony of the nurse who conducted her examination. Next, the

state presented K.K’s testimony, the testimony of the nurse who

conducted her examination, and the testimony of a witness with

K.K. during the evening of K.K.’s encounter with appellant.

After the state presented the evidence that surrounded K.K.’s

encounter with appellant, the state presented K.H.’s testimony
Athens App. No. 21CA15 20

and the testimony of the nurse who conducted her examination.

After the state presented testimony from law enforcement

officers involved in the investigations, the state introduced

the forensic evidence involved with the three individuals. All

forensic evidence identified appellant as the contributor of the

DNA recovered during the examinations.

{¶43} After our review, we conclude that the evidence

adduced at trial is not complicated or confusing, and the state

presented the evidence in a logical manner. The evidence is, in

fact, simple and direct. See State v. Kuck, 2016-Ohio-8512, 79

N.E.3d 1164, ¶ 43 (2nd Dist.) (evidence simple and direct when

prosecution first presented evidence that involved one victim

then presented evidence that involved other victim); State v.

Clyde, 6th Dist. Erie No. E–14–006, 2015–Ohio–1859, ¶ 38,

quoting State v. Lewis, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L–09–1224, L–09–

1225, 2010–Ohio–4202, ¶ 33 (evidence simple and direct when

“each victim testified as to his or her own experiences with

[the defendant]” and stating joinder not prejudicial when “‘the

evidence is presented in an orderly fashion as to the separate

offenses or victims without significant overlap or conflation of

proof’”); State v. Meeks, 5th Dist. Stark No.2014CA17, 2015–

Ohio–1527, ¶ 99 (evidence simple and direct when state “clearly

laid out [the offenses] for the jury” and “[e]ach victim

testified separately”); State v. Hillman, 10th Dist. Franklin
Athens App. No. 21CA15 21

Nos. 14AP–252 and 14AP–253, 2014–Ohio–5760, 26 N.E.2d 1236, ¶ 40

(evidence simple and direct when incidents “involved a simple

set of facts and a limited number of witnesses whose testimony

was straightforward”); State v. Moshos, 12th Dist. Clinton No.

CA2009–0608, 2010–Ohio–735, ¶ 82 (evidence simple and direct

when each victim “provided a detailed description of her own

unwanted sexual encounters with appellant”); State v. Kissberth,

2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 20500, 2005–Ohio–3059, ¶ 62 (evidence

simple and direct when witnesses “testified only to their own

experiences with” the defendant); State v. Ahmed, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 84220, 2005–Ohio–2999, ¶ 26 (evidence simple and

direct when “[e]ach victim testified as to the specific facts

giving rise to her separate charges against” the defendant).

{¶44} Furthermore, we find nothing in the record to suggest

that the jury could not separate the evidence with respect to

each offense, or that the jury could have been confused. Most

notably in the case at bar, we emphasize that the jury sifted

through all the evidence and found appellant not guilty of the

rape allegation that involved one victim, K.K., and not guilty

of the R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) rape allegation that involved K.H.

See State v. Sutton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102300, 2015-Ohio-

4074, ¶ 25 (“[T]he jury’s not guilty verdicts on several of the

charges demonstrated the jury’s ability to apply the evidence

separately to each offense.”); State v. Evans, 4th Dist. Jackson
Athens App. No. 21CA15 22

No. 10CA1, 2012-Ohio-1562, ¶ 38 (“Because the jury acquitted

[the defendant] of one of the charges, we cannot find that the

jury was confused by the evidence, overwhelmed by the number of

counts, or influenced by the cumulative effect of the

joinder.”); State v. Villa, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18868, 2002-

Ohio-2939, ¶ 51 (“[A] jury’s acquittal of a defendant on one or

two charges establishes that the defendant was not prejudiced by

the joinder of the charges against him”). Thus, in light of the

jury’s verdict in the case sub judice, we believe that the

record indicates that the jury considered each of the three

individual’s encounters with appellant separately, and could

appropriately separate the state’s proof with respect to each

charge.

{¶45} Moreover, we do not agree with appellant that the

failure to sever the charges negatively impacted his right to

testify. Appellant argues that, if the trial court separated

the offenses into separate trials, he could have chosen to

testify in some of the trials and remain silent in others

without jeopardizing his defense concerning other offenses.

Appellant thus argues that the failure to separate the offenses

into separate trials forced him to testify regarding all alleged

offenses, even though he may have chosen to remain silent if the

offenses had been separated for trial.

{¶46} To establish that the failure to separate offenses for
Athens App. No. 21CA15 23

trial prejudiced a defendant’s right to testify, a “defendant

must make a convincing showing that he has important testimony

to give concerning one cause, and a strong need to refrain from

testifying in the other.” State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170,

176, 405 N.E.2d 247 (1980). Additionally, the defendant “must

produce sufficient information regarding the nature of the

testimony he wishes to give in the one case, and his reasons for

not wishing to testify in the other, so as to satisfy the court

that his claim of prejudice is genuine.” Id.

{¶47} After our review in the case sub judice, we do not

believe appellant presented any convincing reasons to support

his argument that he might have chosen to testify in some of the

cases, but not others. See generally State v. Dean, 146 Ohio

St.3d 106, 2015-Ohio-4347, 54 N.E.3d 80, ¶ 66 (“defendant’s mere

desire to testify to only one count is an insufficient reason to

require severance”). Here, appellant did not establish “a

strong need to refrain from testifying” in one case, and

“important testimony” to give in any other case. Thus,

appellant has not established sufficient prejudice to warrant

separate trials.

{¶48} We further note that courts have determined that any

prejudice that may result from the joinder of offenses is

minimized when a trial court cautions a jury before

deliberations to consider each count, and the evidence
Athens App. No. 21CA15 24

applicable to each count, separately, and to state its findings

as to each count uninfluenced by its verdict on any other

counts. State v. Freeland, 4th Dist. Ross No. 12CA3352, 2015-

Ohio-3410, ¶ 16, citing State v. Gibson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L–

13–1223 and L–13–1222, 2015–Ohio–1679, ¶ 30. In the case at

bar, we recognize that the trial court instructed the jury to

consider each count, and the evidence applicable to each count,

separately. Specifically, the trial court stated:

The four charges set forth in this case constitute
separate and distinct matters. You must consider each
charge and the evidence applicable to each charge
separately. And you must state your findings as to each
charge uninfluenced by your verdict as to the other
charges. The Defendant may be found guilty or not guilty
of any or all of the charged offenses.

Thus, we believe the trial court’s instruction minimized any

possible prejudice that could result from the joinder of the

offenses for trial.

{¶49} Consequently, after our review in the case sub judice

we do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion by

overruling appellant’s motion to separate the trials. Here, a

review of the record reveals that the evidence is simple and

direct, and the jury could segregate the evidence when it

determined whether the state had established, beyond a

reasonable doubt, that appellant committed the charged offenses.

{¶50} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we

overrule appellant’s first assignment of error.
Athens App. No. 21CA15 25

II

{¶51} In his second assignment of error, appellant asserts

that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence certain

hearsay statements. In particular, appellant contends that the

court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence the

following messages: (1) Facebook messages that J.R. exchanged

with the hookah bar owner and with her friend; and (2) text

message K.H. sent to her boss.

{¶52} Appellant argues these statements are not relevant and

their prejudicial effect substantially outweigh any probative

value. Appellant further alleges that the statements should not

be admitted into evidence under the present-sense-impression or

excited-utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule because,

appellant reasons, neither J.R. nor K.H. sent the messages at

the time they perceived the events or while under the stress of

excitement. Instead, appellant contends that both J.R. and K.H.

sent their messages after sufficient time passed to reflect upon

events.

A

{¶53} Initially, we observe that trial courts typically

enjoy broad discretion to determine whether a declaration falls

within a hearsay exception. State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d

261, 2016-Ohio-5735, 70 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 97 (hearsay rulings

ordinarily reviewed for abuse-of-discretion unless
Athens App. No. 21CA15 26

constitutional rights implicated under Confrontation Clause);

State v. Dever, 64 Ohio St.3d 401, 410, 596 N.E.2d 436 (1992)

(“trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a

declaration should be admissible as a hearsay exception”).

Appellate courts, therefore, generally will not disturb a trial

court’s evidentiary ruling unless the court “‘has clearly abused

its discretion and the defendant has been materially prejudiced

thereby.’” State v. Obermiller, 147 Ohio St.3d 175, 2016-Ohio-

1594, 63 N.E.3d 93, ¶ 61, quoting State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d

49, 64, 752 N.E.2d 904 (2001). As we noted earlier, an abuse of

discretion implies that a court’s attitude is unreasonable,

arbitrary or unconscionable. E.g., State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio

St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 60 citing Blakemore

v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

{¶54} In the case sub judice, as we explain below, we do not

believe that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing

the state to introduce J.R.’s and K.H.’s out-of-court

statements.

B

{¶55} Appellant argues that the statements in question are

not relevant under Evid.R. 401 and, even if relevant, the

prejudicial effect substantially outweighs any probative value.

We first note, however, that appellant does not point to the

record where he objected to the statements based on relevancy or
Athens App. No. 21CA15 27

prejudicial impact. Instead, as noted in appellant’s brief,

appellant objected to J.R.’s out-of-court statements for the

following reasons: “the messages constituted out-of-court

declarations, an attempt to bolster J.R.’s credibility, and

extrinsic evidence of her character, and also lacked

foundation.” Appellant’s Brief at 13. Moreover, when appellant

objected to K.H.’s testimony, he objected on the basis of

hearsay and further argued it is “duplicative and redundant

extrinsic evidence.” Trial Transcript Day Two at 82. Thus,

because appellant did not argue before the trial court that the

statements are not relevant or are unfairly prejudicial, he may

not raise these issues for the first time on appeal. See

generally State v. Russell, 4th Dist. Ross No. 21CA3750, 2022-

Ohio-1746, ¶ 90 (objecting on one basis does not preserve other

unmentioned grounds); Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga

Cty. Executive, 142 Ohio St.3d 125, 2014-Ohio-4650, 28 N.E.3d

1182, ¶ 30 (may not raise argument on appeal not raised in trial

court).

{¶56} Appellate courts may, however, consider a forfeited

argument using a plain-error analysis. See Risner v. Ohio Dept.

of Nat. Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 144 Ohio St.3d 278,

2015-Ohio-3731, 42 N.E.3d 718, ¶ 27 (reviewing court has

discretion to consider forfeited constitutional challenges); see

also Hill v. Urbana, 79 Ohio St.3d 130, 133–34, 679 N.E.2d 1109
Athens App. No. 21CA15 28

(1997), quoting In re M.D., 38 Ohio St.3d 149, 527 N.E.2d 286

(1988), syllabus (“‘[e]ven where [forfeiture] is clear,

[appellate] court[s] reserve[] the right to consider

constitutional challenges to the application of statutes in

specific cases of plain error or where the rights and interests

involved may warrant it’”); State v. Pyles, 7th Dist. Mahoning

No. 13-MA-22, 2015-Ohio-5594, ¶ 82, quoting State v. Jones, 7th

Dist. No. 06-MA-109, 2008-Ohio-1541, ¶ 65 (plain-error doctrine

“‘is a wholly discretionary doctrine’”); DeVan v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Bd. of Revision, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga, 2015-Ohio-4279, 45 N.E.3d

661, ¶ 9 (appellate court retains discretion to consider

forfeited argument); see Rosales-Mireles v. United States, ___

U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1897, 1904, 201 L.Ed.2d 376 (2018) (court

has discretion whether to recognize plain error).

{¶57} For the plain error doctrine to apply, the party

claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a

deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error was

“‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that

this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error

“‘must have affected the outcome of the [proceedings].’” State

v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶

22, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 759 N.E.2d

1240 (2002); Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207,

209, 436 N.E.2d 1001, 1003 (1982) (“A ‘plain error’ is obvious
Athens App. No. 21CA15 29

and prejudicial although neither objected to nor affirmatively

waived which, if permitted, would have a material adverse affect

on the character and public confidence in judicial

proceedings”).

{¶58} In the case before us, we do not believe that the

trial court obviously erred by failing to conclude that the

statements are irrelevant, or that the prejudicial effect of the

statements substantially outweighed any probative value.

Consequently, the plain-error doctrine does not apply to

appellant’s relevancy and prejudicial-effect arguments.

C

{¶59} Appellant next argues that the statements constitute

inadmissible hearsay. Appellant disputes the state’s assertion

that the trial court properly admitted the statements under the

excited-utterance exception.

{¶60} Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the

declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in

evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Evid.R.

801(C). Hearsay is inadmissible in evidence at trial, unless it

falls under an exception to the Rules of Evidence. Evid.R. 802;

State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, 9 N.E.3d

930 (2014), ¶ 129; State v. Lykins, 4th Dist. Adams No.

18CA1079, 2019-Ohio-3316, ¶ 92.

{¶61} Evid.R. 803(2) contains the excited-utterance
Athens App. No. 21CA15 30

exception. This rule permits a trial court to admit a hearsay

statement into evidence “if it relates ‘to a startling event or

condition made while the declarant was under the stress of

excitement caused by the event or condition.’” State v. Fry,

125 Ohio St.3d 163, 2010–Ohio–1017, 926 N.E.2d 1239, ¶ 100,

quoting Evid.R. 803(2). A court may admit a hearsay statement

under the excited utterance exception under the following

circumstances:

“(a) there was some occurrence startling enough to
produce a nervous excitement in the declarant, which was
sufficient to still his reflective faculties and thereby
make his statements and declarations the unreflective
and sincere expression of his actual impressions and
beliefs, and thus render his statement of declaration
spontaneous and unreflective,
(b) the statement or declaration, even if not
strictly contemporaneous with its exciting cause, was
made before there had been time for such nervous
excitement to lose a domination over his reflective
faculties so that such domination continued to remain
sufficient to make his statements and declarations the
unreflective and sincere expression of his actual
impressions and beliefs,
(c) the statement or declaration related to such
startling occurrence or the circumstances of such
starling occurrence, and
(d) the declarant had an opportunity to observe
personally the matters asserted in his statement or
declaration.”

State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10, 2012–Ohio–5677, 984 N.E.2d

948, ¶ 166, quoting Potter v. Baker, 162 Ohio St. 488, 124

N.E.2d 140 (1955), paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶62} The excited-utterance “‘exception derives its guaranty

of trustworthiness from the fact that declarant is under such
Athens App. No. 21CA15 31

state of emotional shock that his reflective processes have been

stilled. Therefore, statements made under these circumstances

are not likely to be fabricated.’” State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio

St.3d 295, 300, 612 N.E.2d 316 (1993), quoting McCormick,

Section 297 (2d ed. 1972). Additionally, excited utterances

“are considered more trustworthy than hearsay generally
on the dual grounds that, first, the stimulus renders
the declarant incapable of fabrication and, second, the
impression on the declarant’s memory at the time of the
statement is still fresh and intense. Accordingly, Rule
803(2) assumes that excited utterances are not flawed by
lapses of memory or risks of insincerity.”

Id., quoting 1 Weissenberger’s Ohio Evidence (1992), Section

803.16.

{¶63} In the case sub judice, appellant challenges the

state’s assertion that J.R. and K.H. made their statements while

under stress of nervous excitement. Appellant asserts that

because J.R. and K.H. made their statements the day after the

events, the evidence fails to show that nervous excitement

continued until the time of the statements. Instead, appellant

argues that both J.R. and K.H. had sufficient time to reflect

upon events and their statements constitute a narration of

events, rather than excited utterances.

{¶64} The amount of time that elapses “between the statement

and the event is relevant but not dispositive of” whether a

declarant’s statement occurred while still under the stress of

the startling occurrence. Jones at ¶ 168, quoting Taylor, 66
Athens App. No. 21CA15 32

Ohio St.3d at 303; State v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 87, 90, 524

N.E.2d 466 (1988). In fact, “‘[t]here is no per se amount of

time after which a statement can no longer be considered to be

an excited utterance.’” Jones at ¶ 168, quoting Taylor, 66 Ohio

St.3d at 303. Instead, “‘[t]he central requirements are that

the statement must be made while the declarant is still under

the stress of the event and the statement may not be a result of

reflective thought.’” Id., quoting Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d at

303; Stough v. Indus. Comm., 142 Ohio St. 446, 52 N.E.2d 992

(1944), paragraph one of the syllabus (“A declaration or

statement, to be admissible as part of the res gestae, is not

required to be exactly simultaneous with the primary fact in

controversy, but it must be a spontaneous or an impulsive

declaration or statement and not the mere narration of a past

transaction”).

{¶65} A court that must determine whether a declarant’s

statement occurred while under stress of the startling

occurrence must examine the particular facts of the case and not

“‘“attempt to formulate an inelastic rule delimiting the time

limits within which an oral utterance must be made in order that

it be termed a spontaneous exclamation.”’” Jones at ¶ 168,

quoting Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d at 303, quoting State v. Duncan,

53 Ohio St.2d 215, 219–220, 373 N.E.2d 1234 (1978).

Furthermore, reviewing courts should affirm a trial court’s
Athens App. No. 21CA15 33

conclusion that a statement fits the excited-utterance exception

when its “‘decision appears to be a reasonable one, even though

the reviewing court, if sitting as a trial court, would have

made a different decision.’” Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d at 305,

quoting Potter, 162 Ohio St. at 499–500. In Jones, the court

determined the declarant’s statement to be an excited utterance

when the evidence showed that the declarant “was highly upset

and screaming” when she “blurted out” the circumstances of the

startling event (i.e., learning that defendant killed a person).

Id. at ¶ 169. The court concluded that the declarant’s

demeanor, when making the statement, showed that she remained

“under the influence of the startling occurrence when she made

her excited utterance.” Id., citing State v. Wallace, 37 Ohio

St.3d 87, 90–91, 524 N.E.2d 466 (1988) (statement excited

utterance even though 15–hour interval between startling

occurrence and utterance and declarant unconscious for part of

that time), and State v. Baker, 137 Ohio App.3d 628, 649, 739

N.E.2d 819 (12th Dist.2000) (several-hour interval between

startling occurrence and utterance); State v. Huertas, 51 Ohio

St.3d 22, 31, 553 N.E.2d 1058 (1990) (statement excited-

utterance when “declarant was ‘very agitated,’ ‘in serious pain’

and ‘had not calmed down’ from the stress of” startling event,

i.e., a stabbing).

{¶66} However, simply remaining “upset” after a startling
Athens App. No. 21CA15 34

occurrence “does not meet the standard for admissibility under

Evid.R. 803(2).” Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d at 303. In Taylor, the

circumstances that surrounded the declarant’s statement

suggested he had time to reflect on the event and to give “a

narrative account” of the event. Id. In that case, the

declarant was murdered, but days before his death he spoke with

Robert Adams, a plumber who performed repairs at the residence

of the declarant’s paramour and the defendant’s grandmother,

Viola Thomas. At trial, Adams testified that the declarant told

Adams that he spent the night at Viola’s residence while the

defendant also stayed overnight and, during the night, he

discovered the defendant rummaging through the declarant’s

clothing. When the declarant asked the defendant why, the

defendant told the declarant that he was looking for cigarettes,

but the declarant explained to Adams that he told the defendant

that the defendant knew that the declarant “smoked cigars, not

cigarettes.” Id. at 297. The declarant also informed Adams

that the defendant “was going to do something to [the declarant]

then but [Viola] prevented it.” Id. The declarant also told

Adams that the defendant “had threatened to kill him.” Id. The

declarant further advised Adams that the defendant “was

mistreating [Viola], had broken into her house, and because of

his laziness, was a burden on her.” Id. Later, the defendant

was convicted of multiple offenses and sentenced to death.
Athens App. No. 21CA15 35

{¶67} On appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the defendant

asserted that the trial court erred by allowing Adams’s hearsay

testimony and argued that Adams’s testimony did not fit the

excited-utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The supreme

court agreed, and pointed out that the primary dispute concerned

whether the declarant made the statements while still “under the

stress of the startling occurrence.” Id. at 301. The court

noted that the appellate court had concluded that the “startling

occurrence” happened when the declarant found the defendant

searching his pants and when the defendant threatened to kill

the declarant. Id. The appellate court thus determined that

these circumstances placed the declarant “in a state of nervous

excitement” and that the declarant’s “nervous excitement

continued to dominate” until the next day when he “relayed the

events to Adams.” Id. The Ohio Supreme Court, however,

concluded that the appellate court’s conclusion lacked

“evidentiary support.” Id. The court observed that the

declarant made several similar statements to Adams throughout

the course of the day – beginning at 8:00 a.m. and ending

sometime in the afternoon and, during each recounting of the

occurrence, the declarant stated that the defendant threatened

to kill him. In deciding whether the declarant’s statements fit

the excited-utterance exception, the court noted that the record

contained only one reference to the declarant’s “state of
Athens App. No. 21CA15 36

agitation.” Id. at 303. The court pointed out that when Adams

responded to a question about whether the declarant appeared

“real upset,” Adams stated that the declarant “was upset. He

just said he loved [Viola], and if he didn’t care for her he

wouldn’t come around.” Id. The court explained, however, that

“[m]erely being ‘upset’ clearly does not meet the standard for

admissibility under Evid.R. 803(2) because it does not show that

[the declarant’s] statements were not the result of reflective

thought.” Id. The court wrote:

Indeed the balance of Adams’s testimony regarding [the
declarant’s] statements indicates just the opposite:
that [the declarant] was reflecting on the event and
giving a narrative account to Adams which was the result
of his reflective thought. [The declarant] commented on
[the defendant’s] laziness for remaining asleep all day
instead of assisting Adams to reduce [Viola’s repair]
bill. The statements included other grievances [the
declarant] had against [the defendant] which had
occurred long before the “startling occurrence” as well
as conduct by [the defendant] that [the declarant]
considered to be detrimental to * * * Viola Thomas. The
comments also included [the declarant’s] conclusion that
were it not for the fact of his love for Viola Thomas,
he would not continue to visit her home.

Id.

The court concluded that the declarant’s

statements clearly indicate that [he] was reflecting on
the events of the previous night, considering other
aspects of his relationship with [the defendant] and
[the defendant’s] relationship with his grandmother as
well as the effect on [the declarant’s] relationship
with [Viola].

Id.
Athens App. No. 21CA15 37

{¶68} Thus, the Taylor court determined that the evidence

failed to show that the declarant’s “reflective faculties were

still dominated by ‘nervous excitement.’” Id. Consequently,

the declarant’s statement did not fall within the excited-

utterance exception.

{¶69} Appellant contends that Taylor should govern the

outcome in the case sub judice because the circumstances that

surrounded J.R.’s and K.H.’s statements demonstrate that each

had sufficient time to reflect upon the occurrences and their

statements appear to be a narrative account of events rather

than a continuation of nervous excitement. We believe, however,

that the traumatic nature of a sexual assault, and the ensuing

reaction to that assault, may not quickly dissipate and may, in

fact, continue for an extended period of time after the

traumatic event. For that reason, those determinations must be

made on a case-by-case basis in light of the unique facts

present in each case. Courts may recognize that a sexual

assault victim may suffer more than some typical nervous

excitement, but instead suffer from severe, life-changing

trauma. Nevertheless, after our review in the case sub judice,

we conclude that any error that the trial court may have

arguably committed when it admitted the statements in question

constitutes harmless error.

{¶70} Crim.R. 52(A) provides: “Any error, defect,
Athens App. No. 21CA15 38

irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial

rights shall be disregarded.” An error is harmless when the

error did not impact the verdict, the error was harmless beyond

a reasonable doubt, and after excising the erroneously admitted

evidence, the remaining evidence establishes the defendant’s

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Harris, 142 Ohio

St.3d 211, 2015-Ohio-166, 28 N.E.3d 1256, ¶ 37. Additionally,

“the admission of hearsay is harmless error where the declarant

was also a witness and examined regarding matters identical to

those contained in the hearsay statements.” State v. Williams,

2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26369, 2016–Ohio–322, ¶ 37.

{¶71} In the case sub judice, J.R. testified and gave direct

testimony that closely mirrored the statements contained in her

Facebook messages. Thus, J.R.’s testimony about her Facebook

messages was cumulative to her in-court statements that

appellant sexually assaulted her. K.H. likewise gave direct

testimony that appellant sexually assaulted her. Her text

message to her boss is simply cumulative to her direct

testimony. Consequently, any arguable error in this regard

constitutes, at most, harmless error. State v. Blanton, 4th

Dist. Adams No. 16CA1031, 2018-Ohio-1275, ¶ 71, citing State v.

L.E.F., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP–1042, 2014–Ohio–4585, ¶ 14

(“[I]nsofar as [victim]’s statements may have been

[inadmissible], we conclude such admission constitutes harmless
Athens App. No. 21CA15 39

error because the statements were cumulative of [victim]’s live

trial testimony, which was subject to cross-examination.”);

State v. Williams, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26369, 2016–Ohio–322,

¶ 37 (“the admission of hearsay is harmless error where the

declarant was also a witness and examined regarding matters

identical to those contained in the hearsay statements”); State

v. Deanda, 2014-Ohio-3668, 17 N.E.3d 1232, ¶ 39 (3rd Dist.)

(“[h]earsay statements admitted that are repetitious of

admissible statements and are supported by overwhelming evidence

are not prejudicial”); State v. Stone, 4th Dist. Scioto No.

11CA3462, 2013-Ohio-209, ¶ 14 (victim’s hearsay testimony that

person assaulted her harmless error when victim presented in-

court testimony of sexual assault); see State v. Williams, 38

Ohio St.3d 346, 350, 528 N.E.2d 910 (1988) (admission of hearsay

that was cumulative testimony constitutes harmless error).

{¶72} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we

overrule appellant’s second assignment of error.

III

{¶73} In his third assignment of error, appellant asserts

that the trial court erred by admitting (1) J.R.’s and K.H.’s

sexual-assault medical records and evidence collection kits, and

(2) their respective nurses’ testimony regarding the statements

that each individual made during the sexual-assault

examinations. Appellant contends that (1) this evidence does
Athens App. No. 21CA15 40

not fall within the Evid.R. 803(4) medical-diagnosis-and-

treatment exception, and (2) the reading of the narration of the

events constitutes the needless presentation of cumulative

evidence under Evid.R. 403(B).
Athens App. No. 21CA15 41

A

{¶74} Once again, we note that the admission of evidence

generally falls within a trial court’s sound discretion and an

appellate court will not reverse a trial court’s evidentiary

decision absent an abuse of that discretion.

B

{¶75} Evid.R. 803(4) contains a hearsay exception for

“[s]tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or

treatment and describing medical history, or past or present

symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general

character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as

reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.”

{¶76} The hearsay rules except statements made for the

purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment due to the inherent

reliability underlying the nature of those statements.

[A] fundamental assumption underlying the medical-
treatment exception is that that particular hearsay is
reliable. Dever, 64 Ohio St.3d at 410–411, 596 N.E.2d
436. “[The] exception is premised on the theory that a
patient’s statements to her physician are likely to be
particularly reliable,” United States v. Tome (C.A.10,
1995), 61 F.3d 1446, 1449, and “carr[y] special
guarantees of credibility,” White v. Illinois (1992),
502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 S.Ct. 736, 116 L.Ed.2d 848.

State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5, 2007-Ohio-5267, 875 N.E.2d

944, ¶ 39.

{¶77} Additionally, statements made for the purpose of
Athens App. No. 21CA15 42

medical diagnosis and treatment are considered reliable because

“‘facts reliable enough to be relied on in reaching a diagnosis

have sufficient trustworthiness to satisfy hearsay concerns.’”

State v. Dever, 64 Ohio St.3d 401, 411, 596 N.E.2d 436 (1992),

quoting 2 McCormick on Evidence (4th Ed.1992) 250; accord

Muttart at ¶ 41. Thus, “[i]f a statement is made for purposes

of diagnosis or treatment, it is admissible pursuant to Evid.R.

803(4).” Muttart at ¶ 34, quoting Dever, 64 Ohio St.3d at 414.

{¶78} In general, statements made while a medical

professional obtains a victim’s history, such as whether a

defendant’s penis entered the victim’s vagina, generally fall

within the medical-diagnosis-and-treatment exception. State v.

Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-Ohio-2742, 933 N.E.2d 775, ¶

37-38. For example, statements that identify a defendant as the

perpetrator of a crime, where the defendant touched the victim,

and how sexual contact occurred ordinarily are statements

obtained for medical diagnosis and treatment. State v. Felts,

2016-Ohio-2755, 52 N.E.3d 1223 (4th Dist.), ¶ 39, citing Arnold

at ¶ 32, 38 (“information regarding the identity of the

perpetrator, the type of abuse alleged, and the time frame of

the abuse allows the doctor or nurse to determine whether to

test the child for sexually transmitted infections”); State v.

Echols, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102504, 2015-Ohio-5138, ¶ 27,

quoting In re D.L., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84643, 2005-Ohio-
Athens App. No. 21CA15 43

2320, ¶ 21 (“‘courts have consistently found that a description

of the encounter and identification of the perpetrator are

within scope of statements for medical treatment and

diagnosis’”); State v. Williams, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C–

140199, 2015-Ohio-3968, ¶ 31 (“Obtaining a thorough history

regarding the causation and nature of the injury is an important

component of medical diagnosis and treatment”); State v. Taylor,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101704, 2015-Ohio-2513, ¶ 44 (“statements

regarding the identity of the perpetrator, the type of abuse

alleged, the time frame of the abuse, and the identification of

the areas where the child had been touched, were all for medical

diagnosis”).

{¶79} On the other hand, statements merely serve an

investigative purpose when they do not help the treatment

provider diagnose a medical condition or recommend treatment.

Thus, a rape victim’s statement that the defendant “shut and

locked the bedroom door before raping her; her descriptions of

where her mother and brother were while she was in the bedroom

with [the defendant], of [the defendant]’s boxer shorts, of him

removing them, and of what [the defendant]’s “pee-pee” looked

like; and her statement that [the defendant] removed her

underwear” “likely were not necessary for medical diagnosis or

treatment.” Arnold at ¶ 34.

{¶80} In the case sub judice, we first point out that
Athens App. No. 21CA15 44

appellant objected before the state introduced each nurse’s

testimony and each medical kit. When he objected, however,

appellant broadly asserted that the nurses’ testimony and

medical kits are inadmissible under Evid.R. 803(4).

Additionally, appellant did not object when the nurses read each

individual’s narrative statement, and did not attempt to

distinguish between statements contained within those narratives

that may have been made for medical diagnosis and treatment and

those solely for investigative purpose.

{¶81} We observe that for each assignment of error presented

for review, an appellant must identify the specific parts of the

record where the alleged error occurred. See App.R. 16(A)(7)

(brief must include “[a]n argument containing the contentions of

the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented

for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with

citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record

on which appellant relies”). “This rule is designed ‘to aid the

reviewing court in determining whether any reversible error

occurred in the lower court by having the complaining party

specify the exact location(s) where such a determination can be

made.’” Mayfair Village Condominium Owners Assn. v. Grynko, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99264, 2013-Ohio-2100, ¶ 6, quoting Hildreth

Mfg. v. Semco, Inc., 151 Ohio App.3d 693, 2003-Ohio-741, 785

N.E.2d 774, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). Consequently, an appellate court
Athens App. No. 21CA15 45

may disregard an assignment of error when an appellant fails to

identify the relevant portions of the record upon which an

assignment of error is based. See App.R. 12(A)(2) (“The court

may disregard an assignment of error presented for review if the

party raising it fails to identify in the record the error on

which the assignment of error is based * * *.”); see also

Mayfair Village Condominium Owners Assn. at ¶ 6 (appellate court

“not obliged to scour the record in search of evidence to

support an appellant's assignment of error.”), citing Nob Hill

E. Condominium Assn. v. Grundstein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

95919, 2011-Ohio-2552, ¶ 11.

{¶82} In the case before us, appellant cites to parts of the

record that contain broad objections to the nurses’ testimony

and medical kits. Appellant does not, however, cite to the

location that contains objections to particular statements that

he believes served an investigative purpose, rather than an

Evid.R. 803(4) medical-diagnosis-or-treatment purpose. Without

citation to the specific parts of the nurses’ testimony that

appellant believes fall outside of the Evid.R. 803(4) medical-

diagnosis-or-treatment exception, we need not parse the

testimony to determine whether the trial court properly admitted

each statement contained in the narratives.

{¶83} Additionally, although we recognize that appellant’s

reply brief points to specific, objectionable statements,
Athens App. No. 21CA15 46

appellant did not raise these same specific objections during

the trial court proceedings. See State v. S.A.A., 10th Dist.

Franklin No. 17AP-685, 2020-Ohio-4650, ¶ 20 (declining to review

argument regarding admissibility of statements contained in

videotaped interview when appellant “did not specifically

outline the same questions before the trial court” and instead

“argued generally at trial that the entire video interviews were

for purposes of forensic investigation”). We therefore decline

to review them for the first time on appeal.

{¶84} Moreover, to the extent that appellant may have lodged

a continuing objection to the evidence, we observe that “[t]he

purpose of a continuing or standing objection is to relieve a

party who has unsuccessfully raised an objection from having to

repeat the objection every time ‘testimony of the same class’ is

offered.” State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of

Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 579, 2015-Ohio-5306, 45 N.E.3d 994, ¶

48, quoting Brady v. Stafford, 115 Ohio St. 67, 152 N.E. 188

(1926), paragraph two of the syllabus. A single continuing

objection is not, however, sufficient to preserve objections to

multiple pieces of evidence when the admissibility

determinations turn on different facts. State v. Henness, 79

Ohio St.3d 53, 59, 679 N.E.2d 686 (1997) (“[t]he existence of

the marital privilege turns on the specific circumstances

surrounding each allegedly privileged communication, e.g.,
Athens App. No. 21CA15 47

whether a third party was present” and thus, continuing

objection insufficient to preserve error). See generally State

v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-Ohio-2742, 933 N.E.2d 775, ¶

41 (same interview or interrogation might contain both

admissible and inadmissible statements).

{¶85} Thus, even if the record suggests that appellant may

have raised a continuing objection to the nurses’ testimony,

this continuing objection, in our view, did not sufficiently

preserve objections to each statement when the admissibility of

each statement required the trial court to separately analyze

whether the statement was made for medical diagnosis or

treatment, or whether the statement was made for investigative

purposes. Importantly, appellant does not cite any authority to

require the wholesale exclusion of a nurse’s testimony when it

contains a mix of statements made for medical diagnosis or

treatment, and statements arguably made for investigative

purposes.

{¶86} Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, we do not

believe that appellant properly preserved his Evid.R. 803(4)

objections to the nurses’ testimony. However, even if he had

properly preserved those objections, we believe that any

arguable error the trial court committed in the admission of

that testimony into evidence, to the extent that it relayed

statements made for an investigative purpose, constitutes
Athens App. No. 21CA15 48

harmless error. Here, the nurses’ testimony simply repeated

what each individual victim stated during their direct in-court

testimony at trial: “[a]ny error in the admission of hearsay is

generally harmless where the declarant of the hearsay statement

is cross-examined on the same matters and the seemingly

erroneous evidence is cumulative in nature.” In re M.E.G., 10th

Dist. Franklin Nos. 06AP-1256, 06AP-1257, 06AP-1258, 06AP-1263,

06AP-1264, and 06AP-1265, 2007-Ohio-4308, ¶ 32; accord State v.

Bender, 3rd Dist. Union No. 14-19-22, 2020-Ohio-722, ¶ 17.

{¶87} In the case at bar, the individuals who were the

subject of the nurses’ testimony testified at trial in open

court, and subject to cross-examination. Bender at ¶ 17; State

v. Clegg, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 20 CAA 09 0035, 2021-Ohio-2736,

¶ 59. The jury had the opportunity to view the witnesses and to

assess their credibility. See Bender at ¶ 17; State v. Ceron,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99388, 2013-Ohio-5241, ¶ 61.

{¶88} Thus, we believe that any arguable error that may have

occurred in this case concerning the testimony of the nurses and

the medical records constitutes harmless error that we must

disregard.

C

{¶89} Appellant further contends that the testimony of the

nurses was needlessly cumulative.

{¶90} Evid.R. 403(B) provides: “Although relevant, evidence
Athens App. No. 21CA15 49

may be excluded if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by considerations of undue delay, or needless

presentation of cumulative evidence.” We note that “Evid.R.

403(B) does not require exclusion of cumulative evidence. The

court has discretion to admit or exclude it.” State v.

Campbell, 69 Ohio St.3d 38, 51, 630 N.E.2d 339 (1994). “The

mere fact that evidence is repetitive will not be considered

reversible error unless the defendant was unfairly prejudiced

thereby.” State v. Baker, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23933, 2011-

Ohio-1820, ¶ 16, citing State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 108-

109, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997). “The pertinent question is whether

the evidence was unfairly prejudicial to the defendant, not

whether it was unfavorable to him.” Id.

{¶91} In the case sub judice, we do not believe that the

trial court abused its discretion by allowing the state to

introduce cumulative evidence. Nothing in the record shows that

the cumulative evidence unfairly prejudiced appellant. Each

witness testified about their personal encounter with a victim

and related to the trier of fact the nature of that encounter.

D

{¶92} Next, appellant argues that the nurses’ testimony is

improper because it bolstered J.R.’s and K.H.’s testimony.

Appellant does not, however, cite any authority that prevents a

party from using another witness’s testimony to bolster a
Athens App. No. 21CA15 50

complaining witness’s testimony. In fact, courts have held that

“‘[a] party may introduce testimony to “bolster” or corroborate

another witness’s testimony as long as the testimony is relevant

and not objectionable on specific evidentiary grounds.’” State

v. Watkins, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-345, 2013-Ohio-804, ¶

22, quoting State v. Hurst, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 98AP–1549

(Mar. 7, 2000); State v. Culp, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26188, 2012–

Ohio–5395, ¶ 30 (evidence corroborating victim’s testimony is

relevant to the victim’s credibility). We therefore reject

appellant’s argument that the trial court erred by admitting the

nurses’ testimony on the basis that it improperly bolstered the

complaining witnesses’ testimony. Here, the witness related the

factual nature of their examination and did not offer opinion

about a victim’s veracity.

{¶93} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we

overrule appellant’s third assignment of error.

IV

{¶94} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant asserts

that the trial court erred by allowing the state to introduce

other-acts evidence for the two offenses (theft and identity

fraud) to which he pled guilty. Appellant asserts that the

evidence was not relevant to prove an element in dispute and

that this evidence is needlessly cumulative.
Athens App. No. 21CA15 51

Evid.R. 404(B)2 provides:

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not
admissible to prove the character of a person in order
to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however,
be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of
motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

R.C. 2945.59 similarly states:

In any criminal case in which the defendant’s
motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on
his part, or the defendant’s scheme, plan, or system in
doing an act is material, any acts of the defendant which
tend to show his motive or intent, the absence of mistake
or accident on his part, or the defendant’s scheme, plan,
or system in doing the act in question may be proved,
whether they are contemporaneous with or prior or
subsequent thereto, notwithstanding that such proof may
show or tend to show the commission of another crime by
the defendant.

2
On July 1, 2022, Evid.R. 404(B) was amended to read as follows:

(B) Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime,
wrong or act is not admissible to prove a person’s
character in order to show that on a particular occasion
the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice. This evidence may be
admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. The
proponent of evidence to be offered under this rule
shall:
(a) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence
the proponent intends to introduce at trial so that an
opposing party may have a fair opportunity to meet it;
(b) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose
for which the proponent intends to offer the evidence,
and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and
(c) do so in writing in advance of trial, or in any
form during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses
lack of pretrial notice.
Athens App. No. 21CA15 52

{¶95} Evid.R. 404(B) and R.C. 2945.59 “preclude[] the

admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts offered

to prove the character of an accused in order to show that the

accused acted in conformity therewith, but it does not preclude

admission of that evidence for other purposes.” State v.

Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521, 2012-Ohio-5695, 983 N.E.2d 1278,

syllabus. In other words, other-acts evidence is not admissible

when the sole purpose of the evidence “is to show the accused’s

propensity or inclination to commit crime.” State v. Hartman,

161 Ohio St.3d 214, 2020-Ohio-4440, 161 N.E.3d 651, ¶ 20,

quoting State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66, 68, 330 N.E.2d 720

(1975), citing 1 Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, Section 205, at

595 (6th Ed.1973). Other-acts evidence is admissible, however,

so long as the evidence relates to a permissible purpose such as

“motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,

identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Evid.R. 404(B).

Accordingly, other-acts evidence is admissible when (1) the

evidence is relevant, (2) the evidence is not used “to prove a

person’s character to show conduct in conformity,” (3) the

evidence is offered “for a legitimate other purpose,” and (4)

the danger of unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh

the probative value of the evidence. State v. Graham, 164 Ohio

St.3d 187, 2020-Ohio-6700, 172 N.E.2d 841, ¶ 72, citing State v.

Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521, 2012-Ohio-5695, 983 N.E.2d 1278, ¶
Athens App. No. 21CA15 53

20.

{¶96} Appellate courts review a trial court’s determination

regarding whether other-acts evidence constitutes impermissible

propensity evidence or permissible nonpropensity evidence using

the de-novo standard of review. Hartman at ¶ 22, citing

Leonard, The New Wigmore: Evidence of Other Misconduct and

Similar Events, Section 4.10 (2d Ed.2019) (“[d]etermining

whether the evidence is offered for an impermissible purpose

does not involve the exercise of discretion * * *, an appellate

court should scrutinize the [trial court’s] finding under a de

novo standard” of review); State v. Ludwick, 4th Dist. Highland

No. 21CA17, 2022-Ohio-2609, ¶ 18; State v. McDaniel, 2021-Ohio-

724, 168 N.E.3d 910, ¶ 17 (1st Dist.). If the proffered other-

acts evidence is for a permissible purpose, trial courts have

discretion, under Evid.R. 403(A), to determine whether the

danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative

value of the evidence. Hartman at ¶ 30; Williams at ¶ 17

(Evid.R. 404(B) affords courts discretion to allow other-acts

evidence when offered for a permissible purpose). Appellate

courts thus review a trial court’s decision under Evid.R. 403

for an abuse of discretion. Hartman at ¶ 30; State v. Graham,

164 Ohio St.3d 187, 2020-Ohio-6700, 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 72;

Ludwick at ¶ 18. Other-acts evidence is relevant if it tends

“to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
Athens App. No. 21CA15 54

determination of the action more probable or less probable than

it would be without the evidence.” Evid.R. 401. Propensity

evidence “almost always * * * will have some relevance.” State

v. Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214, 2020-Ohio-4440, 161 N.E.3d 651,

¶ 25. In fact, propensity “evidence is excluded ‘not because it

has no appreciable probative value but because it has too

much.’” Id., quoting 1A Wigmore, Evidence, Section 58.2, at 1212

(Tillers Rev.1983). The relevancy inquiry in Evid.R. 404(B)

cases thus does not focus upon “whether the other-acts evidence

is relevant to the ultimate determination of guilt.” Id. at ¶

26. Instead, courts must determine whether the evidence is

relevant to a “‘purpose other than the person’s character or

propensity to behave in a certain way.’” Id., quoting United

States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845, 860 (7th Cir.2014).

{¶97} Both Evid.R. 404(B) and R.C. 2945.59 permit other-acts

evidence when the evidence is relevant to establishing a

defendant’s intent. Other-acts evidence is relevant to

establish intent if the evidence tends “‘[t]o show, by similar

acts or incidents, that the act in question was not performed

inadvertently, accidentally, involuntarily, or without guilty

knowledge.’” Id. at ¶ 52, quoting McCormick, Evidence, Section

190, at 804 (4th Ed.1994). “[T]he other-acts evidence ‘must be

so related to the crime charged in time or circumstances that

evidence of the other acts is significantly useful in showing
Athens App. No. 21CA15 55

the defendant’s intent in connection with the crime charged.’”

Id. at ¶ 58, quoting 1 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence at Section

4:31. The evidence “‘“must have such a temporal, modal and

situational relationship with the acts constituting the crime

charged”’” that it “‘“discloses purposeful action in the

commission of the offense in question.”’” Id. at ¶ 61, quoting

State v. Gardner, 59 Ohio St.2d 14, 20, 391 N.E.2d 337 (1979),

quoting State v. Burson, 38 Ohio St.2d 157, 159, 311 N.E.2d 526

(1974).

{¶98} Additionally, evidence of other acts is admissible

when “the challenged evidence plays an integral part in

explaining the sequence of events and is necessary to give a

complete picture of the alleged crime.” State v. Thompson, 66

Ohio St.2d 496, 498, 422 N.E.2d 855 (1981); accord State v.

Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9, 2020-Ohio-5584, 172 N.E.3d 8, ¶ 140;

Hartman at ¶ 41. Furthermore, evidence regarding other acts

“may be presented when ‘they are so blended or connected with

the one on trial as that proof of one incidentally involves the

other; or explains the circumstances thereof; or tends logically

to prove any element of the crime charged.’” State v.

Wilkinson, 64 Ohio St.2d 308, 317, 18 O.O.3d 482, 415 N.E.2d

261, 269 (1980), quoting United States v. Turner, 423 F.2d 481,

483-84 (C.A.7, 1970) (citation omitted).

{¶99} In the case at bar, we believe that evidence regarding
Athens App. No. 21CA15 56

appellant’s other contemporaneous acts was relevant to establish

appellant’s intent by disproving his claim that his sexual

encounters with the victim was consensual. See State v. Gardner,

59 Ohio St.2d 14, 20, 13 O.O.3d 8, 391 N.E.2d 337 (1979) (when

defendant claims sexual encounter consensual, defendant’s intent

is a material issue). The evidence that appellant took the

victim’s debit card immediately after the rape, then later used

the card at multiple locations, helped to demonstrate

appellant’s guilty knowledge and negate his consent defense.

The other acts evidence shared a temporal and situational

relationship with K.H.’s rape so as to disclose his purposeful

action in committing rape. This evidence tended to make it more

probable that appellant did not commit rape inadvertently,

accidentally, involuntarily, or without guilty knowledge.

{¶100} Moreover, the other-acts evidence constituted an

integral component to help to explain the sequence of events and

necessary to provide the trier of fact with a complete picture

of the rape – the evidence flowed directly and immediately from

appellant’s interaction with K.H. and helped to explain the

entire sequence of events.

{¶101} Additionally, even if we accept for purposes of

argument that the trial court erred by allowing the state to

introduce evidence concerning appellant’s theft and identity-

fraud offenses, we believe that any such error is harmless error
Athens App. No. 21CA15 57

that we must disregard. State v. Morris, 141 Ohio St.3d 399,

2014-Ohio-5052, 24 N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 32 (“[A]n improper evidentiary

admission under Evid.R. 404(B) may be deemed harmless error on

review when, after the tainted evidence is removed, the

remaining evidence is overwhelming”). In the case sub judice,

even without the evidence regarding appellant’s theft and

identity-fraud offenses, the record contains overwhelming first-

person accounts and evidence that appellant raped J.R. and K.H.

Both victims testified at trial. J.R. stated that appellant

engaged in unwanted sexual contact with her and that she told

appellant, “no.” K.H. testified that due to excessive alcohol

consumption she had very little recollection of the encounter,

but when she awoke the next day, she discovered that she had

been raped. Appellant did not deny sexual encounters with both

J.R. and K.H. Instead, appellant asserted that they engaged in

consensual sex. As we further explain in appellant’s sixth

assignment of error, we believe that the state presented ample

evidence to establish appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt. Moreover, we again point out that after hearing the

evidence the jury found appellant not guilty of one of the three

charged rape offenses. Thus, any arguable error that stemmed

from the admission of evidence that appellant stole K.H.’s debit

card and then used it to purchase items that totaled

approximately $1,500 did not impact the jury’s verdict. We do
Athens App. No. 21CA15 58

not believe that any danger exists that the jury convicted

appellant of the two counts of rape based upon evidence that he

stole K.H.’s debit card and made purchases. Consequently, any

error did not affect appellant’s substantial rights and is

harmless error that we must disregard. See Crim.R. 52(A) (“Any

error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect

substantial rights shall be disregarded”).

{¶102} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we

overrule appellant’s fourth assignment of error.

V

{¶103} In his fifth assignment of error, appellant asserts

that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence records

from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Appellant points out

that at trial, he objected to admitting the reports into

evidence because the reports “included boilerplate language

suggest[ing] the rape offenses had occurred and each accuser was

in fact a ‘victim.’” Appellant claims that the use of the term

“victim” is unfairly prejudicial and bolstered the testimony of

J.R. and K.H. Appellant additionally objected at trial because

the reports are “no different than giving jurors a police report

that tracks what a witness told a police officer.” On appeal,

appellant argues that the “BCI employees certainly qualified as

law enforcement personnel” under Evid.R. 803(8) and, thus, the

rule should preclude admitting the reports into evidence.
Athens App. No. 21CA15 59

A

{¶104} Once again, we note that the admission of evidence at

trial generally falls within the trial court’s sound discretion,

and an appellate court will not reverse a court’s evidentiary

decision absent an abuse of that discretion. In State v.

Madden, 2017-Ohio-8894, 100 N.E.3d 1203, (10th Dist.), the court

rejected the argument that the use of the word “victim” during a

criminal trial constitutes prejudicial error when (1) “the fact

of an assault was not in dispute,” (2) the “witnesses used the

term ‘victim’ as synonymous with complainant,” (3) the witnesses

“did not express an opinion as to appellant’s guilt,” and (4)

the prosecutor did not “intentionally [seek] to elicit

prejudicial testimony from the witnesses at issue.” Id. at ¶

34. In reaching its decision, the court explained:

This court has noted that “[a] ‘victim’ is a ‘person
harmed by a crime, tort, or other wrong.’” State v.
Morock, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-559, 2015-Ohio-3152, ¶ 25,
citing Black’s Law Dictionary (10th Ed.2014).
Similarly, it has been held that use of the term
“‘victim’ is not the same as expressing an opinion that
the defendant was guilty of a crime; the term ‘victim
applies to anyone who suffers either as a result of
ruthless design or incidentally or accidentally.’”
State v. Chism, 130 Wash.App. 1054, Wash.App. No. 54895–
6–I (Dec. 27, 2005), quoting Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary 2550 (1993).
Courts in other jurisdictions have held that “[t]he
term ‘victim’ is used appropriately during trial when
there is no doubt that a crime was committed and simply
the identity of the perpetrator is in issue.” Jackson
v. State, 600 A.2d 21, 24 (Del.1991). See also In re
Welfare of P.J.K., Minn.App. No. A15–0115 (Sept. 8,
2015) (where issue at trial was not whether an armed
Athens App. No. 21CA15 60

robbery actually occurred but, rather, whether the state
could prove beyond a reasonable doubt who committed it,
occasional reference to individual as “victim” was
“accurate and not prejudicial”).

As noted above, most of the references to “victim”
in the present case are in the context of law enforcement
officers recounting their role in the investigation.
Courts have observed that “the term ‘victim,’ to law
enforcement officers, is a term of art synonymous with
‘complaining witness.’” Jackson at 24–25. Thus, courts
have found a lack of prejudice where a law enforcement
officer uses the term “victim” in such a manner. See
State v. Frey, Iowa App. No. 7–205/06–1081, 2007 WL
1827423 (June 27, 2007) (defense counsel not ineffective
in failing to object to use of the term victim where
detective “used the term ‘victim’ as synonymous with the
term ‘complainant’”); see also State v. Wigg, 179 Vt.
65, 70, 889 A.2d 233 (2005) (finding harmless error where
a law enforcement officer uses the term victim as
synonymous with complainant and “never expressed an
opinion” that the defendant was guilty); State v.
Harvey, 167 Wash.App. 1026, Wash.App. No. 29513–3–III
(Mar. 29, 2012) (questions by prosecutor that elicited
police officers to refer to individuals shot as
“victims” not improper; “referring to the men who died
from gunshot wounds as victims does not amount to opinion
testimony”).
Appellant relies on this court’s decision in State
v. Almedom, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-852, 2016-Ohio-1553, in
support of his contention that reversible error
occurred. That case, however, is distinguishable from
the facts of this case. At issue in Almedom was whether
a crime took place, i.e., whether the defendant had
sexual conduct with girls under the age of 13. Further,
under the facts of Almedom, “the trial court judge
consistently referred to the girls as ‘victims,’” which
this court deemed analogous to “telling the members of
the jury that the girls were truthful when they claimed
that sexual abuse occurred.” Id. at ¶ 2. By contrast,
in the present case there was no dispute that A.S. was
physically assaulted and seriously injured, and the
record contains no victim references by the trial court.

Id. at ¶ 30-33.

{¶105} After our review in the case sub judice, we agree with
Athens App. No. 21CA15 61

the Madden court’s holding and rationale. Applying this

rationale to the instant case, we do not believe that use of the

word “victim” on BCI forms unfairly prejudiced appellant.

First, no one disputed that sexual encounters had, in fact,

occurred between appellant and the three individuals. Second,

the forms “used the term ‘victim’ as synonymous with

complainant.” Third, appellant did not point to anything in the

record to suggest that any witness used the term “victim” to

“express an opinion as to appellant’s guilt.” Last, the record

does not indicate that the prosecutor “intentionally sought to

elicit prejudicial testimony” regarding the three individuals’

status as “victims.” Id. at ¶ 34.

{¶106} Consequently, we do not agree with appellant that the

trial court abused its discretion by admitting the BCI reports

into evidence.

B

{¶107} Appellant next asserts that the trial court should

have excluded the BCI reports because they do not fall within an

exception to the hearsay rule. Appellant contends that under

Evid.R. 803(8), the BCI reports are inadmissible as “matters

observed by police officers and other law enforcement

personnel.” The state, however, argues that the BCI reports are

business records and admissible under Evid.R. 803(6).

Evid.R. 803(8) provides as follows:
Athens App. No. 21CA15 62

Records, reports, statements, or data compilations,
in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth
(a) the activities of the office or agency, or (b)
matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to
which matters there was a duty to report, excluding,
however, in criminal cases matters observed by police
officers and other law enforcement personnel, unless
offered by defendant, unless the sources of information
or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

{¶108} Thus, “[i]n criminal cases, Evid.R. 803(8)(b) excludes

from the public-records-and-reports exception to hearsay police

reports that ‘recite an officer’s observations of criminal

activities or observations made as part of an investigation of

criminal activities.’” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54,

2004-Ohio-6235, 818 N.E.2d 229, ¶ 111, quoting State v. Ward, 15

Ohio St.3d 355, 358, 474 N.E.2d 300 (1984).

{¶109} In the case sub judice, appellant has summarily

asserted that the BCI reports fall within the Evid.R. 803(8)(b)

exclusion, but does not cite authority to support his

proposition. Under App.R. 16(A)(7), an appellant’s brief shall

include “[a]n argument containing the contentions of the

appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for

review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with

citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record

on which appellant relies.” Appellate courts should not perform

independent research to create an argument for a litigant.

State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 2014-Ohio-4034, 19

N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19, quoting State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266,
Athens App. No. 21CA15 63

2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 78 (O’Donnell, J., concurring

in part and dissenting in part), quoting Carducci v. Regan, 714

F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“‘“appellate courts do not sit

as self-directed boards of legal inquiry and research, but

[preside] essentially as arbiters of legal questions presented

and argued by the parties before them”’”); accord State v.

Lykins, 4th Dist. Adams No. 18CA1079, 2019-Ohio-3316, ¶ 57.

“[W]e cannot write a party’s brief, pronounce ourselves

convinced by it, and so rule in the party’s favor. That’s not

how an adversarial system of adjudication works.” Xue Juan Chen

v. Holder, 737 F.3d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir. 2013).

{¶110} In view of the absence of authority to support

appellant’s position, we reject his argument that the BCI

reports are inadmissible under Evid.R. 803(8)(b). See In re

Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 271, 2011-

Ohio-2638, 951 N.E.2d 751, ¶ 14 (failure to cite legal authority

or present argument that a legal authority applies is grounds to

reject a claim); Robinette v. Bryant, 4th Dist. Lawrence No.

14CA28, 2015-Ohio-119, ¶ 33 (“It is within our discretion to

disregard any assignment of error that fails to present any

citations to cases or statutes in support”).

C

{¶111} Appellant next contends that “the probative value of

the reports was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
Athens App. No. 21CA15 64

prejudice, confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury.”

He asserts that the reports “bolstered” the accusers’ testimony

by labeling them “victims” and that the reports “were needlessly

cumulative” when the BCI forensic scientists’ trial testimony

already reported that the DNA analysis matched appellant.

{¶112} We again note that because appellant does not point to

the place in the record where he raised specific objections, he

has forfeited the right to raise this issue on appeal.

Regardless, we do not believe that the trial court erred by

admitting the BCI reports.

{¶113} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we

overrule appellant’s fifth assignment of error.

VI

{¶114} In his sixth assignment of error, appellant asserts

that sufficient evidence does not support his conviction and his

conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

A

{¶115} Initially, we observe that “sufficiency” and “manifest

weight” present two distinct legal concepts. Eastley v.

Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶

23 (“sufficiency of the evidence is quantitatively and

qualitatively different from the weight of the evidence”); State

v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997),

syllabus. A claim of insufficient evidence invokes a due
Athens App. No. 21CA15 65

process concern and raises the question whether the evidence is

legally sufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law.

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 386. When reviewing the sufficiency

of the evidence, our inquiry focuses primarily upon the adequacy

of the evidence; that is, whether the evidence, if believed,

reasonably could support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt. Id. at syllabus. The standard of review is whether,

after viewing the probative evidence and inferences reasonably

drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the prosecution,

any rational trier of fact could have found all the essential

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. E.g.,

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61

L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273, 574

N.E.2d 492 (1991). Furthermore, a reviewing court is not to

assess “whether the state’s evidence is to be believed, but

whether, if believed, the evidence against a defendant would

support a conviction.” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 390 (Cook,

J., concurring).

{¶116} Thus, when reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence

claim, an appellate court must construe the evidence in a light

most favorable to the prosecution. E.g., State v. Hill, 75 Ohio

St.3d 195, 205, 661 N.E.2d 1068 (1996); State v. Grant, 67 Ohio

St.3d 465, 477, 620 N.E.2d 50 (1993). A reviewing court will

not overturn a conviction on a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim
Athens App. No. 21CA15 66

unless reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion that the

trier of fact did. State v. Tibbetts, 92 Ohio St.3d 146, 162,

749 N.E.2d 226 (2001); State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 484,

739 N.E.2d 749 (2001).

{¶117} “Although a court of appeals may determine that a

judgment of a trial court is sustained by sufficient evidence,

that court may nevertheless conclude that the judgment is

against the weight of the evidence.” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d

at 387. “The question to be answered when a manifest weight

issue is raised is whether ‘there is substantial evidence upon

which a jury could reasonably conclude that all the elements

have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Leonard,

104 Ohio St.3d 54, 2004-Ohio-6235, 818 N.E.2d 229, ¶ 81, quoting

State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180, 193–194, 702 N.E.2d 866

(1998), citing State v. Eley, 56 Ohio St.2d 169, 383 N.E.2d 132

(1978), syllabus. A court that considers a manifest weight

challenge must “‘review the entire record, weigh the evidence

and all reasonable inferences, and consider the credibility of

witnesses.’” State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497, 2018-Ohio-

493, 108 N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 208, quoting State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio

St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735, 70 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 328. Reviewing

courts must also bear in mind, however, that credibility

generally is an issue for the trier of fact to resolve. State

v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 67, 752 N.E.2d 904 (2001); State v.
Athens App. No. 21CA15 67

Murphy, 4th Dist. Ross No. 07CA2953, 2008-Ohio-1744, ¶ 31.

“‘Because the trier of fact sees and hears the witnesses and is

particularly competent to decide “whether, and to what extent,

to credit the testimony of particular witnesses,” we must afford

substantial deference to its determinations of credibility.’”

Barberton v. Jenney, 126 Ohio St.3d 5, 2010-Ohio-2420, 929

N.E.2d 1047, ¶ 20, quoting State v. Konya, 2d Dist. Montgomery

No. 21434, 2006-Ohio-6312, ¶ 6, quoting State v. Lawson, 2d

Dist. Montgomery No. 16288 (Aug. 22, 1997). As the Eastley

court explained:

“‘[I]n determining whether the judgment below is
manifestly against the weight of the evidence, every
reasonable intendment must be made in favor of the
judgment and the finding of facts. * * *
If the evidence is susceptible of more than one
construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it
that interpretation which is consistent with the verdict
and judgment, most favorable to sustaining the verdict
and judgment.’”

Id. at ¶ 21, quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10

Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984), fn.3, quoting 5 Ohio

Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review, Section 60, at 191–192

(1978). Thus, an appellate court will leave the issues of

evidence weight and witness credibility to the fact finder, as

long as a rational basis exists in the record for its decision.

State v. Picklesimer, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 11CA9, 2012-Ohio-

1282, ¶ 24; accord State v. Howard, 4th Dist. Ross No. 07CA2948,

2007-Ohio-6331, ¶ 6 (“We will not intercede as long as the trier
Athens App. No. 21CA15 68

of fact has some factual and rational basis for its

determination of credibility and weight”).

{¶118} Accordingly, if the prosecution presented substantial

credible evidence upon which the trier of fact reasonably could

conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the essential elements

of the offense had been established, the judgment of conviction

is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. E.g., Eley;

accord Eastley at ¶ 12, quoting Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387,

quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1594 (6th ed.1990) (judgment not

against the manifest weight of evidence when “‘“the greater

amount of credible evidence”’” supports it). A court may

reverse a judgment of conviction only if it appears that the

fact-finder, when it resolved the conflicts in evidence,

“‘clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage

of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial

ordered.’” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, quoting State v.

Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983);

accord McKelton at ¶ 328. A reviewing court should find a

conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence only in

the “‘exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily

against the conviction.’” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387,

quoting Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d at 175; accord State v. Clinton,

153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 166; State

v. Lindsey, 87 Ohio St.3d 479, 483, 721 N.E.2d 995 (2000).
Athens App. No. 21CA15 69

{¶119} We further note that “‘“[w]hen conflicting evidence is

presented at trial, a conviction is not against the manifest

weight of the evidence simply because the jury believed the

prosecution testimony.”’” State v. Cooper, 170 Ohio App.3d 418,

2007–Ohio–1186, 867 N.E.2d 493, ¶ 17 (4th Dist.), quoting State

v. Mason, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21397, 2003–Ohio–5785, ¶ 17,

quoting State v. Gilliam, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 97CA006757, 1998

WL 487085, *4 (Aug. 12, 1998). Moreover, a conviction is not

against the manifest weight of the evidence even if the

“evidence is subject to different interpretations.” State v.

Adams, 2d Dist. Greene Nos. 2013CA61, 2013–CA–62, 2014–Ohio–

3432, ¶ 24.

{¶120} We also observe that, when an appellate court

concludes that the weight of the evidence supports a defendant’s

conviction, this conclusion necessarily includes a finding that

sufficient evidence supports the conviction. E.g., State v.

Waller, 4th Dist. Adams No. 17CA1044, 2018-Ohio-2014, ¶ 30.

Thus, a determination that the weight of the evidence supports a

conviction is also dispositive of the issue of sufficiency. Id.

B

{¶121} After our review of the evidence adduced at trial in

the case sub judice, we do not believe that the evidence weighs

heavily against appellant’s rape convictions under R.C.

2907.02(A)(1)(c) and (A)(2). Those provisions read:
Athens App. No. 21CA15 70

(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct
with another who is not the spouse of the offender or
who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate
and apart from the offender, when any of the following
applies:
* * * *
(c) The other person’s ability to resist or consent
is substantially impaired because of a mental or
physical condition or because of advanced age, and the
offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that
the other person’s ability to resist or consent is
substantially impaired because of a mental or physical
condition or because of advanced age.
(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with
another when the offender purposely compels the other
person to submit by force or threat of force.

1

{¶122} Appellant first asserts that the evidence fails to

support his 2907.02(A)(2) conviction because the evidence does

not establish that he purposely compelled J.R. to submit to

sexual contact by force or threat of force. In particular,

appellant alleges that J.R. could have left at any time, or

declined to crawl into the backseat with him, and once J.R.

moved to the backseat, she “reasonably signaled” she “wished to

engage in sexual activity with him.” Appellant further argues

that J.R. merely felt regret over the incident and that he did

not purposely compel her to engage in sexual contact.

{¶123} The state, on the other hand, contends that

appellant’s conviction is not against the manifest weight of the

evidence. The state points to testimony that J.R. did not want

to engage in sexual contact with appellant, that she told
Athens App. No. 21CA15 71

appellant to stop, and that appellant did not stop his advances.

{¶124} After our review, we agree with the state’s view of

the evidence. Because J.R.’s testimony contains ample competent

and credible evidence that appellant purposely compelled her to

engage in sexual contact by force or threat of force,

appellant’s R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) rape conviction is not against

the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury was in the best

position to hear the testimony, to assess witness credibility

and the jury chose to believe the prosecution’s witness when it

resolved conflicts in the evidence. This is the function of the

trier of fact. A jury is free to believe all, part or none of

the testimony from any witness who testifies before the jury.

Likewise, we believe that the record contains sufficient

evidence to support the conviction.

2

{¶125} Appellant next argues that his R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c)

rape conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

In particular, he contends that the evidence fails to support a

finding that (1) K.H.’s alcohol consumption substantially

impaired her ability to resist or consent, or (2) appellant

“knew or had reasonable cause to believe K.H.’s ability to

resist or consent was substantially impaired.” Appellant claims

that, because K.H. was conscious enough to invite appellant into

her home, undress, and engage in sexual contact with him, the
Athens App. No. 21CA15 72

evidence fails to show that K.H. was substantially impaired, or,

if so, that appellant knew, or had reasonable cause to believe,

that her ability to resist or consent was substantially

impaired.

{¶126} In State v. Canterbury, 4th Dist. Athens No. 13CA34,

2015-Ohio-1926, we discussed the meaning of “substantial

impairment”:

“The phrase ‘substantial impairment’ is not defined
in R.C. 2907.02, nor has the Ohio Supreme Court provided
any definition.” State v. Keeley, [4th Dist. Washington
No. 11CA5, 2012-Ohio-3564] at ¶ 16; citing State v.
Daniels, Summit No. 25808, 2011-Ohio -6414, ¶ 6.
However, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated, in regards
to a sexual battery charge against a youth victim alleged
to have an impairment due to alleged mental retardation,
as follows:
“The phrase ‘substantially impaired,’ in that it is
not defined in the Ohio Criminal Code, must be given the
meaning generally understood in common usage. As
cogently stated by the appellate court, substantial
impairment must be established by demonstrating a
present reduction, diminution or decrease in the
victim’s ability, either to appraise the nature of his
conduct or to control his conduct.” State v. Zeh, 31
Ohio St.3d 99, 103–104, 509 N.E.2d 414 (1987).
* * * *
Further, “[w]hether a person is substantially
impaired ‘does not have to be proven by expert medical
testimony; rather, it can be shown to exist by the
testimony of people who have interacted with the victim,
and by allowing the trier of fact to do its own
assessment of the person’s ability to appraise or
control his or her conduct.’” State v. Lasenby, 3rd
Dist. Allen No. 1-13-36, 2014-Ohio-1878, ¶ 27; quoting
State v. Brady, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87854, 2007-Ohio-
1453, ¶ 78; State v. Brown, 3rd Dist. Marion No. 9-09-
15, 2009-Ohio-5428, ¶ 21. Thus, the determination of
substantial impairment is made “on a case-by-case basis,
providing great deference to the fact-finder.” Lasenby
Athens App. No. 21CA15 73

at ¶ 27; citing Brown at ¶ 22.

{¶127} Additionally, voluntary intoxication or impairment

is included in the terms “mental or physical condition” as

used in R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c). Lasenby at ¶ 28; citing State

v. Harmath, 3rd Dist. Seneca No. 13-06-20, 2007-Ohio-2993, ¶

14; see also State v. Boden, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26623, 2013-

Ohio-4260, ¶ 20; State v. Cedeno, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

98500, 2013-Ohio-821, ¶ 20. Further, courts have held that

“[t]he consumption of large amounts of alcohol in a short

period of time is evidence that voluntary intoxication caused

substantial impairment.” Lasenby at ¶ 28; citing State v.

Hatten, 186 Ohio App.3d 286, 2010–Ohio–499, ¶ 22 (2nd Dist.);

see also State v. Lindsay, 3rd Dist. Logan No. 8–06–24, 2007–

Ohio–4490, ¶ 20.

State v. Canterbury, 4th Dist. Athens No. 13CA34, 2015-Ohio-

1926, ¶ 57-59.

{¶128} Factors that courts identify as evidence of

substantial impairment due to intoxication include: (1) the

victim consumed large quantities of alcohol; (2) the victim

“passed out”; and (3) the victim cannot recall, or has

difficulty remembering, the incident. State v. Dailey, 4th

Dist. Adams No. 18CA1059, 2018-Ohio-4315, ¶ 51 (rape victim

consumed large quantity of alcohol and stated she “passed out”);

State v. Kuck, 2016-Ohio-8512, 79 N.E.3d 1164, ¶ 95 (2nd Dist.)
Athens App. No. 21CA15 74

(substantial impairment established when victim “consumed at

least ten alcoholic drinks”); State v. Lasenby, 3rd Dist. Allen

No. 1-13-36, 2014-Ohio-1878, ¶ 28 (consuming large quantity of

alcohol in short time period and inability to recall events

constitutes evidence of substantial impairment); State v.

Hatten, 186 Ohio App.3d 286, 2010-Ohio-499, 927 N.E.2d 632, ¶ 24

(2d Dist.) (“stumbling, falling, slurred speech, passing out, or

vomiting” evidence of substantial impairment).

{¶129} We also note that evidence that a rape victim

displayed some awareness, or could ambulate from one location to

another, does not negate a finding of substantial impairment.

Dailey at ¶ 52; State v. Bentz, 2017-Ohio-5483, 93 N.E.3d 358

(3rd Dist.), ¶ 105 (rejecting argument that weight of evidence

showed victim “not substantially impaired because she was able

to ambulate out of [defendant]’s bedroom, to [a] vehicle, and to

the police department without assistance”). In Dailey, for

example, the rape victim showed some awareness by feigning sleep

in the hope that the defendant would cease the activity. Id. at

¶ 5. We, nonetheless, upheld the defendant’s substantial-

impairment rape conviction because we did not believe that the

victim’s ability to be sufficiently aware to feign sleep negated

the substantial-impairment element. Rather, being aware does

not equate to a finding that the victim failed to “experience[]

a ‘reduction, diminution or decrease’ in her abilities to
Athens App. No. 21CA15 75

appraise the nature of, or control, her conduct.” Id. at ¶ 52,

quoting Zeh, 31 Ohio St.3d at 103–104.

{¶130} In the case sub judice, after our review we believe

that the record contains ample competent and credible evidence

of K.H.’s substantial impairment at the time appellant engaged

in sexual conduct with her. K.H. testified she spent several

hours consuming numerous alcoholic beverages and she does not

remember how she returned home. She explained she remembers

sitting on her porch and talking with appellant, but after that

point, she could not remember what occurred. Instead, she

indicated that her next recollection is waking up the following

day. The inability to recall what transpired throughout the

night illustrates that K.H. experienced a “reduction, diminution

or decrease in [her] ability, either to appraise the nature of

[her] conduct or to control [her] conduct.” Zeh, 31 Ohio St.3d

at 103–104. If K.H. cannot recall her conduct, the jury

reasonably could have inferred that she had a reduction,

diminution, or decrease in her ability to either assess the

nature of her conduct or to control her conduct.

{¶131} Appellant, however, contends that he did not know, or

have reasonable cause to believe, that K.H.’s ability to resist

or consent was substantially impaired. To support this claim,

appellant relies upon (1) his testimony that he did not think

that K.H. appeared to be under the influence of alcohol, and (2)
Athens App. No. 21CA15 76

the lack of testimony from K.H.’s companions on the night in

question to suggest that K.H. had displayed signs of impairment.

{¶132} Under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c), an accused’s conduct is

not criminal unless, inter alia, the accused engages in sexual

conduct with another when the accused knows, or has reasonable

cause to believe, that the person’s ability to consent or resist

is substantially impaired due to a mental or physical condition.

{¶133} According to R.C. 2901.22(B),

[a] person acts knowingly, regardless of his
purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably
cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain
nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he
is aware that such circumstances probably exist.

We observe that “intent, lying as it does within the

privacy of a person’s own thoughts, is not susceptible of

objective proof.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 60, 656

N.E.2d 623 (1995). Thus, “[i]ntent ‘“can never be proved by the

direct testimony of a third person and it need not be. It must

be gathered from the surrounding facts and circumstances.”’”

State v. Teamer, 82 Ohio St.3d 490, 492, 696 N.E.2d 1049 (1998),

quoting State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 168, 555 N.E.2d 293

(1990), quoting State v. Huffman, 131 Ohio St. 27, 1 N.E.2d 313,

paragraph four of the syllabus (1936). Consequently, “whether a

person acts knowingly can only be determined, absent a

defendant’s admission, from all the surrounding facts and

circumstances * * *.” State v. Huff, 145 Ohio App.3d 555, 563,
Athens App. No. 21CA15 77

763 N.E.2d 695 (1st Dist.2001).

{¶134} Accordingly, whether an accused knew, or had

reasonable cause to believe, that a victim was substantially

impaired for purposes of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) may be inferred

from the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the

victim’s demeanor. State v. Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

101311, 2015-Ohio-1818, ¶ 43, citing State v. Novak, 11th Dist.

Lake No. 2003-L-077, 2005-Ohio-563, ¶ 25. Evidence that should

alert an accused of a victim’s substantial impairment may

include evidence that the victim was “stumbling, falling,

slurr[ing] speech, passing out, or vomiting.” State v. Hatten,

186 Ohio App.3d 286, 2010-Ohio-499, 927 N.E.2d 632, ¶ 24 (2d

Dist.). Additionally, “[a] jury can reasonably conclude that

the defendant knew the victim was substantially impaired and

unable to object to the defendant’s conduct if there was

evidence that the victim was in a state of deep sleep or

drunkenness.” State v. Anderson, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-04-035,

2005-Ohio-534, ¶ 41; accord State v. Palmer-Tesema, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 107972, 2020-Ohio-907, ¶ 60 (“sleep constitutes a

mental or physical condition that substantially impairs a person

from resisting or consenting to sexual conduct.”); State v.

Graves, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88845, 2007-Ohio-5430, ¶ 22

(“sleep is a mental or physical condition that substantially

impairs a person from resisting or consenting to sexual
Athens App. No. 21CA15 78

conduct”).

{¶135} For example, a victim’s testimony that she “passed

out” and awoke to the defendant “in between [her] legs and [her]

pants and underwear down and him licking [her] on [her] vagina”

permits a finding that the defendant knew or had reasonable

cause to believe that the victim’s ability to resist or consent

was substantially impaired because of a physical condition.

State v. Miller, 3rd Dist. Logan No. 8-19-02, 2019-Ohio-4121, ¶

38. Additionally, a victim who testifies that she experienced

“blackouts” suggests that the victim was unconscious. Kuck at ¶

97. A victim’s unconscious state, being obviously

ascertainable, also permits a finding that the defendant knew or

had reasonable cause to believe that the victim’s ability to

resist or consent was substantially impaired because of a

physical condition. State v. Eberth, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 07-

MA-196, 2008-Ohio -6596, ¶ 49 (evidence victim unconscious

during sexual contact “more than enough to prove that she was

substantially impaired”); see State v. Williams, 9th Dist.

Lorain App. No. 02CA008112, 2003-Ohio-4639 (defendant’s

awareness victim passed out after ingesting a substantial amount

of alcohol is evidence that he knew, or should have known, that

the victim substantially impaired). Being unconscious does “not

simply impair [a victim] from resisting or consenting.” Kuck at

¶ 97. Instead, it precludes the victim from taking any action
Athens App. No. 21CA15 79

at all. Id.

{¶136} In contrast, when a rape victim testifies that she

“was aware of her surroundings and coherent enough to make

decisions about the extent of her participation in the events in

question,” courts have concluded that this evidence fails to

show that the defendant knew, or had reasonable cause to

believe, that the victim was substantially impaired. State v.

Rivera, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97091, 2012-Ohio-2060, ¶ 28.

{¶137} After our review in the case sub judice, we believe

that the state presented ample competent and credible evidence

to establish that appellant knew, or had reasonable cause to

know, that K.H. was substantially impaired. K.H. stated she has

no memory of what happened between the time that she spoke with

appellant outside of her residence and when she awoke the next

day. Also, the forensic toxicologist testified that K.H.’s

blood-alcohol content, when submitted at 5:00 p.m. the following

day, was .146%. He explained that the rate of alcohol

dissipation for women is .018% per hour and the varying degrees

of intoxication: (1) intoxication becomes life-threatening once

the blood-alcohol level approaches .35 or .4, and (2) at the

lower concentrations, between .05 and .1, a person’s inhibitions

and critical-thinking skills become impaired. A person with a

.1 blood-alcohol concentration will display some deficits in

reaction time and exhibit coordination difficulties, and when a
Athens App. No. 21CA15 80

person’s content reaches .2, the person can become “confused”

and “disoriented.” At the higher levels, around a .3 and

beyond, a person may have memory problems, and once a person

reaches “a .3 and beyond,” the person “enter[s] a stage of

intoxication that can be associated with stupor or being

comatose.” The toxicologist indicated that a person will not be

“forming memory very well if they’re in a stupor or they’re

unresponsive or unconscious.”

{¶138} Here, K.H.’s testimony, in addition to the forensic

toxicologist’s testimony, permitted the jury to infer that K.H.

was unconscious or passed out when appellant engaged in sexual

conduct with her. K.H. stated she has no memory of the events

(or very little memory according to the SANE report) between the

moment she spoke with appellant while she sat on her front porch

and when she awoke the next day at 1:30 p.m. Her memory lapse,

according to the forensic toxicologist, indicates either “in a

stupor,” “unresponsive[,] or unconscious.” For appellant to

claim to be unaware that K.H. was in any of these states is

specious, and the jury obviously did not find appellant’s

testimony credible. As the trier of fact, it is well within the

jury's province to discredit appellant’s testimony.

{¶139} Consequently, in the case at bar it appears that the

jury opted to believe K.H.’s testimony that she did not consent

to engaging in sexual conduct with appellant and that she was
Athens App. No. 21CA15 81

unaware of, or had scant memory of, the nature of any sexual

contact that had occurred until she awoke the next day when she

noticed that her body displayed indicators of sexual activity.

We find nothing manifestly unjust with the jury’s decision to

discredit appellant’s testimony that he and K.H. engaged in

consensual sexual conduct. Once again, a trier of fact may

choose to believe all, part or none of the testimony of any

witness who appears before it. Here, the jury believed K.H.’s

testimony and discounted appellant’s testimony. Obviously, the

jury is in the best position to observe the witnesses and to

assess their credibility.

{¶140} Therefore, we do not agree with appellant that his

R.C. 2707.02(A)(1)(c) conviction is against the manifest weight

of the evidence. The state presented substantial competent and

credible evidence that K.H. was substantially impaired and that

appellant knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that K.H.

was substantially impaired. For these same reasons, we believe

that the record contains sufficient evidence to support

appellant’s R.C. 2707.02(A)(1)(c) rape conviction.

{¶141} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we

overrule appellant’s sixth assignment of error.

VII

{¶142} In his seventh assignment of error, appellant asserts

that the trial court’s sentence is clearly and convincingly
Athens App. No. 21CA15 82

contrary to law. Appellant does acknowledge that his sentences

“fall within the applicable [statutory} ranges available,” but

asserts that the trial court did not correctly consider “the

purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C.

2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in

R.C. 2929.12.” Id.

{¶143} When reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts

apply the standard of review outlined in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

State v. Prater, 4th Dist. Adams No. 18CA1069, 2019-Ohio-2745, ¶

12, citing State v. Graham, 4th Dist. Adams No. 17CA1046, 2018-

Ohio-1277, ¶ 13. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “[t]he appellate

court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court

abused its discretion.” Instead, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) specifies

that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate

and remand a challenged felony sentence if the court clearly and

convincingly finds either:

(a) That the record does not support the sentencing
court’s findings under division (B) or (D) of section
2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section
2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the
Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

{¶144} A defendant bears the burden to establish, by clear

and convincing evidence, (1) that a sentence is either contrary

to law or (2) that the record does not support the specified

findings under R.C. 2929.13(B), R.C. 2929.13(D), R.C.
Athens App. No. 21CA15 83

2929.14(B)(2)(e), 2929.14(C)(4), or R.C. 2929.20(I). State v.

Behrle, 4th Dist. Adams No. 20CA1110, 2021-Ohio-1386, ¶ 48;

State v. Shankland, 4th Dist. Washington Nos. 18CA11 and 18CA12,

2019-Ohio-404, ¶ 20.

[C]lear and convincing evidence is that measure or
degree of proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance
of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty
as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal
cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier
of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts
sought to be established.

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954),

paragraph three of the syllabus.

{¶145} “A court reviewing a criminal sentence is required by

R.C. 2953.08(F) to review the entire trial-court record,

including any oral or written statements and presentence-

investigation reports.” State v. Bryant, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,

2022-Ohio-1878, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 20, citing R.C. 2953.08(F)(1)

through (4). We additionally observe, however, that “[n]othing

in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to

independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute

its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence

that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.”

State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d

649, ¶ 42. In other words, “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow

an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its

view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C.
Athens App. No. 21CA15 84

2929.11 and 2929.12.” Bryant at ¶ 22. Consequently, appellate

courts cannot review a felony sentence when “the appellant’s

sole contention is that the trial court improperly considered

the factors of R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12 when fashioning that

sentence.” State v. Stenson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1074,

2021-Ohio-2256, ¶ 9, citing Jones at ¶ 42; accord State v.

Orzechowski, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-029, 2021-Ohio-985, ¶ 13

(“In light of Jones, assigning error to the trial court’s

imposition of sentence as contrary to law based solely on its

consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is no longer grounds

for this court to find reversible error.”); State v. Loy, 4th

Dist. Washington No. 19CA21, 2021-Ohio-403, ¶ 30. We also

observe that “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial

court to make any specific factual findings on the record.”

Jones at ¶ 20.

{¶146} Furthermore, “an appellate court’s determination that

the record does not support a sentence does not equate to a

determination that the sentence is ‘otherwise contrary to law’

as that term is used in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).” Jones at ¶ 32.

“[O]therwise contrary to law” means “‘in violation of statute or

legal regulations at a given time.’” Id. at ¶ 34 quoting

Black's Law Dictionary 328 (6th Ed.1990), cited with approval in

Bryant at ¶ 22. Thus, for example, “when a trial court imposes

a sentence based on factors or considerations that are
Athens App. No. 21CA15 85

extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and

2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law.” Bryant at ¶ 22.

{¶147} In the case sub judice, appellant has not argued that

the record fails to support the findings under R.C. 2929.13(B),

R.C. 2929.13(D), R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(e), 2929.14(C)(4), or R.C.

2929.20(I). Appellant agrees that his sentences “fall within

the applicable ranges available,” but instead asserts that the

issue is “whether the trial court considered the purposes and

principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and

the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C.

2929.12.”

{¶148} As we pointed out above, however, R.C. 2953.02(G)(2)

does not allow this court to independently review the record to

determine whether the trial court chose an appropriate sentence

based on the R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 factors. See Jones,

supra; State v. Hughes, 4th Dist. Adams No. 21CA1127, 2021-Ohio-

3127, ¶ 41 (“R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not give appellate courts

broad authority to review sentences to determine if they are

supported by the record”). Therefore, we may not consider the

issue of whether the trial court properly considered the

purposes and principles of felony sentencing listed in R.C.

2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in

R.C. 2929.12. We note, however, that the trial court did, in

fact, indicate that it did fully consider the factors listed in
Athens App. No. 21CA15 86

each section. Furthermore, we find nothing in the record to

suggest that the trial court’s sentencing decision is contrary

to law. Rather, appellant agrees that his prison sentence is

authorized under the relevant statutes.

{¶149} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we

overrule appellant’s seventh assignment of error and affirm the

trial court’s judgment.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Athens App. No. 21CA15 87

JUDGMENT ENTRY

It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed and that
appellee recover of appellant the costs herein taxed.

The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this
appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this
Court directing the Athens County Common Pleas Court to carry
this judgment into execution.

If a stay of execution of sentence and release upon bail
has been previously granted, it is continued for a period of 60
days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of said stay
is to allow appellant to file with the Ohio Supreme Court an
application for a stay during the pendency of the proceedings in
that court. The stay as herein continued will terminate at the
expiration of the 60-day period.

The stay will also terminate if appellant fails to file a
notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court in the 45-day
period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of
the Ohio Supreme Court. Additionally, if the Ohio Supreme Court
dismisses the appeal prior to the expiration of said 60 days,
the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that
mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Smith, P.J. & Wilkin, J.: Concur in Judgment & Opinion

For the Court

BY:__________________________
Peter B. Abele, Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a
final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal
commences from the date of filing with the clerk.