DocketNumber: Case No. 2002-L-026.
Judges: DONALD R. FORD, P.J.
Filed Date: 4/18/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
{¶ 2} On August 24, 2001, appellant was secretly indicted by the Lake County Grand Jury on three counts of corruption of a minor, felonies of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} The facts emanate from the sexual predator hearing: The charges revolve around sexual conduct which occurred between appellant, who was thirty-nine years old, and the victim, who was a thirteen-year-old girl at the time of the offenses. Appellant and the victim had known each other for over one year due to the fact that the victim was a friend of appellant's stepdaughter. Also, the victim's sister dated appellant's son.
{¶ 4} The foregoing charges stem from two occasions when appellant engaged in sexual conduct with the victim.1 On the first occasion, September 20, 2000, appellant inserted his finger into the victim's vagina, while on his bed at his home. The second occasion occurred on September 21, 2000, when appellant picked up the victim from her school bus stop at 7:00 a.m., and transported her to the Hidden Valley Park in Madison Township, Ohio, where he engaged in sexual conduct with the victim at the park. Appellant fondled the victim's breast and twice inserted his finger into her vagina. Appellant also took the victim to his sister's and brother's-in-law home, where all four smoked marijuana. Appellant then placed a joint into the victim's cigarette pack, without telling her, and appellant and the victim left the home.
{¶ 5} Appellant transported the victim back to her school where she missed the first eight class periods of the day. Appellant took the joint, which was not smoked, out of the victim's cigarette pack so that she would not get into any trouble. At that time, appellant also told the victim not to tell anyone that she had spent the day with him.
{¶ 6} Because the victim's school notified her mother in the morning that she was absent from school, her mother filed a missing juvenile report with the Lake County Sheriff's Office. Witnesses at the victim's bus stop claimed she was last seen entering appellant's van. The Lake County Sheriff's Office began to search for the victim, and the investigation led officials to appellant's home.
{¶ 7} Appellant was interviewed and claimed that he picked up the victim from her bus stop without parental consent and transported her directly to school. After interviewing appellant, the Lake County Sheriff's Office questioned the victim, who disclosed the sexual conduct at issue. Attempts to locate appellant for another interview were unsuccessful. However, officers spoke with appellant's wife, Marian Arnold, and appellant's stepdaughter, and told them about the investigation. Appellant's stepdaughter disclosed that appellant also had inappropriate sexual conduct with her. In particular, appellant's stepdaughter alleged that appellant raped her on several occasions, the first time in the fall of 1995, when she was eight years old, and the last time occurred in May 1999, when she was twelve years old. Although appellant's stepdaughter told several individuals about the sexual conduct with appellant at or after the time it was occurring, she never formally reported it to the authorities.
{¶ 8} The next morning, on September 22, 2000, appellant left his home, drove to his brother's home in Ashtabula, Ohio, and signed the title to his van over to his brother. Appellant then walked to the nearby Greyhound Bus Terminal and purchased a one-way ticket to Fort Myers, Florida.
{¶ 9} In addition to the foregoing allegations, appellant was also being investigated for his possible involvement with Internet child pornography. Appellant was said to have erected a video camera inside his stepdaughter's bedroom and downloaded the video images onto his computer. During a search of appellant's home, officers located a computer/video cable that was wired from appellant's computer to his stepdaughter's bedroom.
{¶ 10} The trial court sentenced appellant to one year on each of the corruption of a minor charges and four years on the abduction charge, with all sentences to run concurrently, and he was given credit for one hundred and thirty three days time served. Additionally, appellant was labeled as a sexual predator. It is from that judgment that appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 14, 2002, and makes the following assignment of error:
{¶ 11} "The trial court committed reversible error when it labeled [appellant] a sexual predator against the manifest weight of the evidence."
{¶ 12} Appellant's sole contention is that the trial court erred by labeling him a sexual predator where the evidence presented did not prove by clear and convincing evidence, set forth in R.C.
{¶ 13} The applicable standard of review, under R.C.
{¶ 14} In making a determination as to whether an offender is a sexual predator, the trial court must look to R.C.
{¶ 15} "(a) The offender's or delinquent child's age;
{¶ 16} "(b) The offender's or delinquent child's prior criminal or delinquency record regarding all offenses, including, but not limited to, all sexual offenses;
{¶ 17} "(c) The age of the victim of the sexually oriented offense for which sentence is to be imposed or the order of disposition is to be made;
{¶ 18} "(d) Whether the sexually oriented offense for which sentence is to be imposed or the order of disposition is to be made involved multiple victims;
{¶ 19} "(e) Whether the offender or delinquent child used drugs or alcohol to impair the victim of the sexually oriented offense or to prevent the victim from resisting;
{¶ 20} "(f) If the offender or delinquent child previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to, or been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act that if committed by an adult would be, a criminal offense, whether the offender or delinquent child completed any sentence or dispositional order imposed for the prior offense or act and, if the prior offense or act was a sex offense or a sexually oriented offense, whether the offender or delinquent child participated in available programs for sexual offenders;
{¶ 21} "(g) Any mental illness or mental disability of the offender or delinquent child;
{¶ 22} "(h) The nature of the offender's or delinquent child's sexual conduct, sexual contact, or interaction in a sexual context with the victim of the sexually oriented offense and whether the sexual conduct, sexual contact, or interaction in a sexual context was part of a demonstrated pattern of abuse;
{¶ 23} "(i) Whether the offender or delinquent child, during the commission of the sexually oriented offense for which sentence is to be imposed or the order of disposition is to be made, displayed cruelty or made one or more threats of cruelty;
{¶ 24} "(j) Any additional behavioral characteristics that contribute to the offender's or delinquent child's conduct."
{¶ 25} These statutory criteria are intended to aid the trial court, which must determine by clear and convincing evidence, whether an offender is likely to commit one or more sexually oriented offenses in the future. Clear and convincing evidence is more than a mere preponderance of the evidence, yet does not rise to the level of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Cross v. Ledford (1954),
{¶ 26} The Supreme Court of Ohio has indicated that appellate courts use a manifest weight standard to review a trial court's finding that an offender is a sexual predator. State v. Cook (1998),
{¶ 27} In the case at bar, because appellant was involved in a sexually oriented offense, and pleaded guilty to two counts of corruption of a minor and one count of abduction, the first prong of R.C.
{¶ 28} The trial court relied upon numerous factors under R.C.
{¶ 29} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 30} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 31} The trial court also found that appellant "displayed cruelty or made one or more threats of cruelty" toward the victim pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 32} For the foregoing reasons, appellant's assignment of error is not well taken. The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
WILLIAM M. O'NEILL and ROBERT A. Nader, JJ., concur.
ROBERT A. NADER, J., retired, of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting by assignment,