State v. Nitso , 2024 Ohio 790 ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Nitso, 2024-Ohio-790.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
TRUMBULL COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2023-T-0025
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
KENNETH NITSO,
Trial Court No. 2022 CR 00569
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: March 4, 2024
Judgment: Affirmed
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant
Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W. Warren, OH
44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Edward M. Heindel, 2200 Terminal Tower, 50 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For
Defendant-Appellant).
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Kenneth Nitso, appeals his convictions from the Trumbull County
Court of Common Pleas for gross sexual imposition, rape, and compelling prostitution.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
{¶2} On July 22, 2022, the Trumbull County Grand Jury returned a 14-count
indictment charging appellant with: eight counts of gross sexual imposition, five counts of
rape, and one count of compelling prostitution. The following facts were presented at the
jury trial held on February 27, 2023.
{¶3} R.N. is appellant’s biological daughter. At the time of trial, R.N. was 13 years
old. R.N. confided in her brother, J.D., that appellant was sexually abusing her. J.D.
revealed the information to Laura Revetti (“Revetti”), a school supervisor. At trial, Revetti
testified that she is the supervisor of a program for emotionally disturbed children at
Trumbull County Educational Service Center. J.D. participates in Revetti’s program.
Revetti testified that during the disclosure, she observed that J.D. was fidgeting, tapping,
rocking back and forth, and his face was getting red.
{¶4} At trial, R.N. testified that appellant’s conduct began when she was six years
old and continued until she was 12. R.N. testified that when she was six, appellant would
cuddle with her and put his hand on her breasts, and that by the time she was seven the
same conduct continued to occur but escalated to touching her breasts under her
clothing. R.N. then testified that at eight years old, during the continued cuddling sessions,
appellant would rub his “private part” against her butt, and that sometimes it was inside
his pants, and sometimes outside of his pants. The behavior continued to escalate, and
R.N. testified that appellant would then make her rub his private part with her hand, that
by age ten, he rubbed her vagina with his hand, and by age 11, had put his mouth on her
vagina. R.N. testified that he told her to “enjoy it.” R.N. continued to testify about the
conduct, that at age 11 he had her perform oral sex on him, and that on one occasion he
offered her $20, and on another occasion offered her $40, for performing oral sex on him.
{¶5} Because of her position, Revetti is a mandated reporter. She informed
Children Services of J.D.’s disclosure and contacted the assistant principal at R.N.’s
middle school, Tracie Liptak (“Liptak”). Liptak then approached R.N. at school. Liptak
testified that R.N. became “very shaky” and “[h]er face turned beet red and the tears just
2
Case No. 2023-T-0025
started to flow. * * * The first words out of her mouth were, ‘I’ve been telling mommy this
since I was six years old and no one believes me anyway.’” Liptak testified at trial that
R.N. disclosed to her that if she told anyone what happened, her mother would be mad,
her daddy would have to go away, the bills would not be paid, and she would be the
reason her family is torn apart. Liptak testified that R.N. told her “on the weekends when
he’s drinking she will snuggle with him * * * he rubs his penis on her butt * * * and
sometimes * * * she does fall asleep hard and she wakes up with her panties down around
her ankle[s].”
{¶6} Detective Michael Banic (“Detective Banic”) with the Hubbard City Police
Department testified that he began investigating this case after R.N.’s school resource
officer made him aware of it. Detective Banic testified that he interviewed appellant as
part of his investigation. Detective Banic testified that appellant’s demeanor was subdued
when he sat down to talk with him, that appellant denied sexually assaulting R.N., and
that he told Detective Banic that he didn’t even like changing R.N.’s diaper when she was
a baby. Detective Banic testified that appellant told him he was never alone with his
daughter but admitted that they shared a bed together.
{¶7} Amanda McAllen (“McAllen”) is a nurse practitioner for Children’s Advocacy
Center, a center that specializes in child abuse investigations. McAllen testified that she
performed an exam on R.N. McAllen testified that she has performed more than 200 of
these exams on others in the past. McAllen testified that the exam is intended to look for
“physical findings of sexual abuse.” While no physical findings were made, McAllen
explained that is not uncommon. McAllen further explained regarding the exam, “it’s an
exception if we see * * * any physical findings of sexual abuse.” McAllen described the
3
Case No. 2023-T-0025
terms “grooming” and “delayed disclosure” as it relates to R.N.’s disclosure to J.D. after
years of abuse:
“Grooming” is when you – when something occurs and it
slowly progresses. So, for instance, [R.N.] described that he
had put his hand on her stomach. And she - - you know, that
happened and didn’t disclose anything. So then slowly it just
progressed into worsening, desensitization of instances
occurring. * * * “Delayed disclosure” is when you - - the victim
will delay disclosing what happened to them for reasons of
fear. And a lot of the time it will be that they - - the perpetrator
is somebody who provides for basic needs. So they’re scared
those basic needs being taken from them.
{¶8} During her evaluation, R.N. made further disclosures that were included in
McAllen’s written report. The notes detailed an encounter where appellant’s hand was
rubbing R.N.’s vagina. McAllen testified that R.N.’s description of pain felt during the
experience was called an “experiential detail,” and that because of R.N.’s prepubertal
age, anything touching “the inside of the labial folds would have a sensation of hurting.
And that’s how, you know, we can gather that, you know, that she experienced it, because
of that detail that she gives. She wouldn’t know that it would hurt. Developmentally, she
wouldn’t know that.”
{¶9} Appellant submitted to a stipulated polygraph examination prior to trial. At
the time of the polygraph examination, appellant was represented by different counsel
than at trial. William Evans (“Evans”), the polygraph examination expert who administered
the exam, testified.
{¶10} Prior to Evan’s testimony, appellant’s attorney objected to the admission of
the expert testimony and polygraph results, asserting that appellant’s counsel was not
present during the examination. Appellant believed that the stipulated polygraph
agreement would not carry over to his new trial counsel. The State contended that
4
Case No. 2023-T-0025
appellant’s counsel was, in fact, present, and that he was not allowed in the room with
appellant while the examination was being administered. The State submitted as an
exhibit the stipulated polygraph agreement, which contains a provision that binds
successive counsel to the agreement. The trial court ruled that the examination and
testimony would be admissible. At trial, Evans testified that appellant’s responses
indicated deception when questioned throughout the course of several sessions about
sexual touching and sexual activity with R.N.
{¶11} The jury found appellant guilty on all counts of gross sexual imposition
(counts 1-4, 6-7, 10, and 14), one count of rape (count 12), and the single count charged
for compelling prostitution (count 13). The jury found appellant not guilty on four counts
of rape (counts 5, 8-9, and 11). On March 1, 2023, appellant was sentenced to 60 months
on each count of gross sexual imposition (eight counts in total), to be served concurrently.
count 12 for rape and count 13 for compelling prostitution merged. The State elected to
proceed on count 12 that resulted in appellant receiving 25 years to a maximum of life,
with the count 12 sentence running consecutively with the 60 months for gross sexual
imposition. Appellant’s aggregate term is 30 years to life.
{¶12} Appellant timely appeals his conviction and raises four assignments of error
for review.
{¶13} Appellant’s first assignment of error asserts: “The trial court erred when it
admitted the polygraph test results without providing the jury a cautionary instruction in
accordance with State v. Cleavenger, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2019-P-0031, 2020-Ohio-
1325, 153 N.E.3d 496.”
5
Case No. 2023-T-0025
{¶14} Defense counsel made no objection to the failure to state a jury instruction
on polygraph evidence. All but plain error is forfeited on appeal when counsel fails to
object. State v. Keith, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-22-28, 2023-Ohio-3428, ¶ 8, citing State v.
Kean, 10 Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-427, 2019-Ohio-1171, ¶ 65.
{¶15} This court recently noted in State v. Walker, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2022-
T-0109, 2023-Ohio-2725, ¶ 38:
“Crim.R. 52(B) affords appellate courts discretion to correct
‘[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights’
notwithstanding the accused’s failure to meet his obligation to
bring those errors to the attention of the trial court.” State v.
Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860,
¶ 22. Appellant bears the burden of demonstrating plain error
by proving that the outcome would have been different absent
the plain error. [State v.] Payne, [114 Ohio St.3d 502. 2007-
Ohio-4642, 873 N.E.2d 306] at ¶ 17.
{¶16} This Court further held, “Courts are cautioned ‘to notice plain error “with the
utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest
miscarriage of justice.”’” Walker at ¶ 39, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27,
759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002) quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978),
paragraph three of the syllabus. “To establish plain error, a defendant must show an error
that constitutes an obvious defect in the trial proceedings and demonstrate that the error
affected the outcome of the trial. State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459,
38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22.” State v. Little, 11th Dist. Portage Nos. 2023-P-0011, 2023-P-0012,
2023-Ohio-4098, ¶ 77.
{¶17} The Supreme Court of Ohio articulated in State v. Souel, 53 Ohio St.2d
123, 372 N.E.2d 1318 (1978) syllabus, the required conditions for polygraph examination
results to be admissible evidence for corroboration or impeachment in a criminal trial:
6
Case No. 2023-T-0025
(1) The prosecuting attorney, defendant and his counsel must
sign a written stipulation providing for defendant’s submission
to the test and for the subsequent admission at trial of the
graphs and the examiner’s opinion thereon on behalf of either
defendant or the state.
(2) Notwithstanding the stipulation, the admissibility of the test
results is subject to the discretion of the trial judge, and if the
trial judge is not convinced that the examiner is qualified or
that the test was conducted under proper conditions he may
refuse to accept such evidence.
(3) If the graphs and examiner’s opinion are offered in
evidence the opposing party shall have the right to cross-
examine the examiner respecting:
(a) the examiner’s qualifications and training;
(b) the conditions under which the test was administered;
(c) the limitations of and possibilities for error in the
technique of polygraphic interrogation; and,
(d) at the discretion of the trial judge, any other matter
deemed pertinent to the inquiry.
(4) If such evidence is admitted the trial judge should instruct
the jury to the effect that the examiner’s testimony does not
tend to prove or disprove any element of the crime with which
a defendant is charged, and that it is for the jurors to
determine what weight and effect such testimony should be
given.
{¶18} This court applied the Souel conditions in State v. Cleavenger, 2020-Ohio-
1325, 153 N.E.3d 496, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.):
Polygraph test results are generally inadmissible to prove an
accused’s guilt or innocence; they are likewise inadmissible
for impeachment or enhancing credibility unless (1) the
parties have stipulated their admissibility; (2) the court
confirms the examiner's qualifications and test conditions; (3)
the opposing party has had the opportunity to cross-examine
the polygraph examiner; and (4) that the results do not tend
to prove or disprove any element of the crime charged and the
court must instruct the jury about the weight of the polygraph
7
Case No. 2023-T-0025
evidence. State v. Rowe, 68 Ohio App.3d 595, 609-610, 589
N.E.2d 394 (10th Dist. 1990), citing State v. Souel, 53 Ohio
St.2d 123, 132, 372 N.E.2d 1318 (1978).
{¶19} When a stipulation allows the results of a polygraph examination to be
admitted, it is only for the purposes of corroboration or impeachment. Souel at syllabus.
{¶20} In its brief, the State concedes that no jury instruction was given to inform
the jury about the weight of the polygraph evidence. A failure to give a jury instruction on
the weight of the polygraph evidence is inconsistent with the fourth condition articulated
in Cleavenger. Instead, a general instruction was given regarding the weight of the expert
testimony presented at trial:
Now, generally, a witness may not express an opinion.
However, one who follows a profession or special line of work
may express his or her opinion because of his or her
education, knowledge and experience. Such testimony is
admitted for whatever assistance it may provide to help you
arrive at a just verdict.
However, as with other witnesses, upon you alone rests the
duty of deciding what weight to give – should be given to the
testimony of the experts. In determining its weight, you will
make – you will take into consideration their skill, experience,
knowledge, veracity, familiarity with the facts of this case, and
the usual rules for testing credibility and determining the
weight to be given to the testimony.
{¶21} This general instruction does not meet the requirements of
Souel/Cleavenger. Therefore, the issue before this Court is whether the trial court’s failure
to provide the Souel/Cleavenger instruction amounts to plain error.
{¶22} Several appellate districts have concluded it does not. The Second District
Court of Appeals concluded the failure to provide the Souel instruction did not amount to
plain error where “* * * [T]here is substantial other evidence in this record from which the
8
Case No. 2023-T-0025
jury could predicate its verdict of guilty * * *.” State v. Rutherford, 2d Dist. Greene No.
2001-CA-122, 2002 WL 398704 *2 (Mar. 15, 2002). The Rutherford court noted: “[t]he
jury was instructed, as part of the general jury instructions, that it was the sole judge of
the facts. The jury evidently took its role seriously, as evidenced by its acquittal of
Rutherford on the charge of Aggravated Assault.” Id. The Third appellate district similarly
held “‘[w]hile the trial court sub judice failed to instruct the jury as required
under Souel, we cannot conclude that this error amounted to plain error in this case since
there was substantial other evidence of Mary’s guilt.’” (Citations omitted). State v. Vielma,
3d. Dist. Paulding No. 11-11-03, 2012-Ohio-875, ¶ 40.
{¶23} It is also worth noting that courts that have found the lack of jury instruction
on the weight of polygraph evidence to be plain error dealt with cases where the polygraph
examination was that of the complaining witness, or the co-defendant, and not the
defendant as in the instant case.
While the Tenth District has found that trial court’s failure to
instruct the jury as required under Souel constitutes plain
error, those cases involved polygraph examinations of the
complaining witness or the co-defendant, not the defendant
like in this case. State v. Lascola, 61 Ohio App.3d 228(1988) (complaining witness); State v. Rowe, 68 Ohio App.3d
595 (1990) (no stipulation and co-defendant); State v.
Fisk, 10th Dist. No. 01AP1193, 2002–Ohio–2776, ¶ 72–
75 (Lascola involved the polygraph examination of the
complaining witness, not the defendant).
Vielma at ¶ 40.
{¶24} The Tenth District Court of Appeals concluded in State v. Madison, 10th
Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-1126, 2007-Ohio-3547, ¶ 14-16:
The distinction between affirmative evidence of guilt and
evidence which says the defendant is lying * * * is a very fine
distinction * * *. The distinction is so fine that we cannot say
9
Case No. 2023-T-0025
the jury’s verdict would have been different had the charge
required by Souel, idem., been given.
***
When we look at the trial court’s statement to the jury and the
instruction given as to expert testimony, the omission of the
Souel instruction was not plain error.
{¶25} In Madison, the trial court gave both a general instruction regarding experts
and gave the following statement:
THE COURT: Let me interject here a minute. The only thing
this expert is testifying about is whether the defendant was
deceptive or not in answering the polygraph. It has the answer
is I’ll tell you it’s no, it doesn’t mean he is guilty or not guilty.
It’s just is a piece of evidence that you can consider with all of
the evidence. That’s just one piece of the evidence. If we were
going to say that he is qualified to say, well, he punched his
wife, he is guilty. It’s over. But that’s not true. That’s why we
have a jury. This is only one piece of evidence. The only thing
he is qualified to do is to say he was deceptive or not, period.
That’s all he is here for.
Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶26} Herein, appellant stipulated to the polygraph, and despite counsels’ efforts
to exclude the polygraph and the related testimony by Evans, Evans testified that the
results of polygraph indicated deception. The trial court subsequently provided a general
jury instruction on the weight of expert evidence. Such instruction is not a substitution for
the instruction required by Souel/Cleavenger. However, in light of the plain error standard
of review, we conclude that there was substantial other evidence of appellant’s guilt.
Thus, nothing in the record indicates, nor has appellant demonstrated, that had the jury
instruction been given on the weight of the polygraph examination that the outcome would
have been any different. Likewise, as the court aptly noted in Rutherford, the jury evidently
took its role seriously, as it acquitted appellant of four counts of rape. Therefore, this court
10
Case No. 2023-T-0025
concludes that the omission of a cautionary instruction does not rise to the level of plain
error. Accordingly, appellant’s first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶27} Appellant’s second assignment of error asserts: “The defendant was denied
his right to the effective assistance of counsel because counsel did not request a
cautionary jury instruction on the admission of the polygraph results[.]”
{¶28} “A convicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective
as to require reversal of a conviction * * * has two components. First, the defendant must
show that counsel’s performance was deficient.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.E.2d 674 (1984). “Second, the defendant must show that the
deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Id.“There is a strong presumption in Ohio that a licensed attorney
is competent. State v. Smith (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 98, 100;
[State v.] Sherman[,11th Dist. Portage No. 98-P-0009. 1999
WL 454533, *3 (June 25, 1999)] at 8-9. Accordingly, to
overcome this presumption, a defendant must show that the
actions of his attorney did not fall within a range of reasonable
assistance. State v. Smith (Dec. 22, 2000), Portage App. Nos.
99-P-0039 and 99-P-0040, unreported, at 18, 2000 Ohio App.
LEXIS 6115.”
State v. Bates, 11th Dist. Portage No. 99-P-0100, at *7.
{¶29} Similar to the plain error analysis conducted above, the second prong of the
Strickland test requires appellant to show that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors,
that the result would have been different to succeed on his claim. See Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694. In addressing appellant’s first assignment of error, we concluded that the
failure to give the Souel/Cleavenger instruction did not amount to plain error and that the
outcome of the trial was not affected. As such, appellant cannot established that he was
prejudiced by defense counsel’s failure to object to the lack of a cautionary jury instruction
11
Case No. 2023-T-0025
on the admission of polygraph evidence, or that the outcome of the trial would have been
different had counsel requested the instruction. Because appellant has failed to satisfy
the second prong required by Strickland, his second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶30} Appellant’s third assignment of error asserts: “The convictions were against
the manifest weight of the evidence[,]” and appellant’s fourth assignment of error asserts:
“[t]here was insufficient evidence against [appellant].” These assignments of error will be
analyzed together.
{¶31} “[W]eight of the evidence addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing
belief.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865
N.E.2d 1264, ¶ 25. An appellate court must consider all the evidence in the record, the
reasonable inferences, the credibility of the witnesses, and whether, “‘in resolving
conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest
miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’” State
v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) quoting State v. Martin, 20
App.3d 172, 485 N.E. 2d 717, 720-721 (5th Dist. 1983). “When a court of appeals
reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of
the evidence, the appellate court sits as a ‘thirteenth juror’ and disagrees with the
factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.” Thompkins at 387, quoting Tibbs v.
Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed 652 (1982).
{¶32} The jury is in the best position to weigh the evidence placed before it.
When assessing witness credibility, “[t]he choice between
credible witnesses and their conflicting testimony rests solely
with the finder of fact and an appellate court may not
substitute its own judgment for that of the finder of fact.” State
v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 123, 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986). This
is because the trier of fact is in the best position to “observe
12
Case No. 2023-T-0025
and evaluate the demeanor, voice inflection, and gestures of
the witnesses.” State v. Dach, 11th Dist. Trumbull Nos. 2005-
T-0048 and 2005-T-0054, 2006-Ohio-3428, ¶ 42. “A fact
finder is free to believe all, some, or none of the testimony of
each witness appearing before it.” State v. Fetty, 11th Dist.
Portage No. 2011-P-0091, 2012-Ohio-6127, ¶ 58.
State v. Brown, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2023-L-023, 2023-Ohio-3017, ¶ 67.
{¶33} In contrast, “[a] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises the issue
of ‘whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.’”
State v. Stacy, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2022-P-0068, 2023-Ohio-3942, ¶ 14, quoting State
v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 165. When reviewing
the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v.
Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶34} Appellant was convicted of eight counts of gross sexual imposition, one
count of rape, and one count of compelling prostitution.
{¶35} R.C. 2907.05, defining Gross Sexual Imposition, provides:
(A) No person shall have sexual contact with another, not
the spouse of the offender; cause another, not the spouse of
the offender, to have sexual contact with the offender; or
cause two or more other persons to have sexual contact when
any of the following applies: * * *
(4) The other person, or one of the other persons, is less than
thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the
age of that person.
{¶36} R.C. 2907.02, defining Rape, provides:
(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another
who is not the spouse of the offender * * * when any of the
following applies: * * *
13
Case No. 2023-T-0025
(b) The other person is less than thirteen years of age,
whether or not the offender knows the age of the person.
{¶37} R.C. 2907.21, defining Compelling Prostitution, provides:
(A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following: * * *
(3)(a) Pay or agree to pay a minor, either directly or through a
minor’s agent, so that the minor will engage in sexual activity,
whether or not the offender knows the age of the minor * * *.
{¶38} Testimony was presented from Laura Revetti, the supervisor at J.D.’s
school program, regarding the impact of R.N.’s disclosure. Revetti testified as to J.D.’s
demeanor when he revealed what was happening to his sister. The jury heard testimony
from Tracie Liptak, the assistant principal at R.N.’s middle school regarding what R.N.
disclosed to her about the sexual abuse. Liptak said that R.N. was visibly upset, and much
of her testimony corroborated what J.D. had disclosed. Liptak also testified that R.N. had
told her she tried to tell her mother what was going on but was not believed. The State
offered Detective Banic’s testimony pertaining to his investigation of appellant, and
appellant’s behavior when he was questioned about the allegation of sexual abuse. The
jury heard polygraph examination results and the testimony of polygraph expert, William
Evans. Amanda McAllen testified regarding the examination she performed on R.N. Her
report was admitted into evidence, and she discussed knowledge about the impact of
sexual abuse on child victims. Finally, R.N. testified before the jury.
{¶39} The jury had the freedom to believe some, all, or none of the evidence that
was presented at trial and was in the best position to weigh that evidence.
{¶40} The appellate court cannot substitute the trier of fact’s judgment for its own.
Awan, 22 Ohio St. 3d at 123. This Court finds that appellant’s convictions were consistent
14
Case No. 2023-T-0025
with the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, appellant’s third assignment is
without merit.
{¶41} Several witnesses who observed R.N. make disclosures about her sexual
encounters with appellant testified at trial. Witnesses, who observed her brother, J.D.,
share the same disclosures, also testified at trial. A nurse practitioner for Children’s
Advocacy Center who performed a medical examination on R.N. testified, and the
resulting report she prepared was admitted as an exhibit for the jury to consider.
Testimony from Detective Banic detailing his investigation of appellant was offered to the
jury for consideration. Finally, R.N.’s testimony of her own experiences was offered to the
jury. R.N. testified to sexual abuse that began happening when she was six years old,
she testified that appellant offered her money for performing oral sex on him. R.N. testified
to the pain she felt when appellant was touching her. McAllen provided testimony about
her knowledge that supports R.N.’s experiences.
{¶42} A thorough review of the record indicates that there was sufficient evidence
presented by the State for a jury to be convinced of appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, appellant’s fourth assignment of error is without merit.
{¶43} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Trumbull County
Court of Common Pleas.
MATT LYNCH, J., concurs,
JOHN J. EKLUND, J., concurs with a Concurring Opinion.
15
Case No. 2023-T-0025
JOHN J. EKLUND, J., concurs with a Concurring Opinion.
{¶44} I agree with the majority’s ultimate judgment, but the majority’s reasoning
on the first assignment of error (the trial court’s failure to give a special polygraph jury
instruction) troubles me. I therefore write to emphasize the importance of strictly
adhering to established judicial guardrails pertaining to polygraph evidence. Particularly
troubling to me is that the trial court provided a general instruction on the weight to be
afforded to expert testimony but failed to provide the required Souel instruction.
{¶45} While the majority acknowledges that this was improper, its analysis ignores
what I perceive to be a fundamental difference between the standard “weight of the
evidence” instruction (given below regarding the expert’s testimony) and
the Souel/Clevenger instruction. The former is designed to tell the jury how to consider
the evidence. The latter is to tell the jury for what
purpose it may/may not consider the evidence at all. The instruction given below not
only abandoned the purpose of the special instruction, it expressly made the purposes for
which the evidence could be considered unlimited. The court instructed that the expert’s
testimony was “admitted for whatever assistance it may provide to help you arrive at a
just verdict” (emphasis added). Since a “just verdict” must be based on (among other
things) the jury finding that the state proved each element of the offense charged, the
instruction given here affirmatively condoned the jury's use of the evidence to prove an
element of the crime charged.
16
Case No. 2023-T-0025
{¶46} This is not a matter of mere semantics. Souel and Clevenger
were grounded in: (1) a concern that polygraph testimony unduly influences jurors (or at
least it can); and (2) an acknowledgment that testimony about polygraphs may have
some probative value. The courts recognized that discerning whether, and if so, to what
extent, such testimony was unduly influential in a particular case is an inherently elusive
goal. Thus, the courts called for a limiting instruction to reduce, so far as process can
with any assurance, the chances that it was. After all, a properly instructed jury is
presumed to have followed them. See State v. Miller, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2004-T-
0082, 2005-Ohio-5283, ¶ 28.
{¶47} Without the instruction, how can a reviewing court, with any assurance,
accurately judge whether or not a jury was unduly influenced? Especially when they
essentially were instructed to do with the evidence whatever they wanted to. Law and
judgment ought not to be left to unknowable chances and probabilities.
{¶48} So, under Ohio’s current plain error standard of review, I believe the trial
court committed an obvious error by failing to give the Souel instruction. See
R.C.2945.11. The instruction it gave compounded the error and leaves us unable to
discern whether or not the outcome of the trial would have been different had the trial
court not committed it. Therefore, I am constrained to concur in the court’s judgment, but
disagree with its analysis of the first assignment of error.
17
Case No. 2023-T-0025