Summary
The Seventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a juvenile court judgment adjudicating J.C. delinquent for sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.06(A) and (C). The court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding of sexual contact and the required purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, and that the adjudication was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that J.C. committed sexual imposition, including sexual contact with the victim that J.C. knew would be offensive or as to which he was reckless, and that the contact was made for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
- The adjudication was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the juvenile court did not clearly lose its way in resolving conflicts and crediting the State's witnesses.
Questions Presented
- Whether sufficient evidence supported J.C.'s adjudication as a delinquent child for sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.06(A) and (C).
- Whether the adjudication for sexual imposition was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (21)
- State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St. 3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, 9 N.E.3d 930, ¶ 146(followed)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991)(followed)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979)(followed)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997)(followed)
- State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St. 3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119(followed)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St. 2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967)(followed)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St. 3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997)(followed)
- State v. T.D.J., 2018-Ohio-2766, ¶¶ 46-48(followed)
- State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St. 3d 426, 447 (1997)(followed)
- State v. Ruschak, 2025-Ohio-2303, ¶¶ 12-15(followed)
Showing top 10 of 21.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…