State v. Fulmer

Summary

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed Steven A. Fulmer Jr.'s convictions for seven counts of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 75 years to life. The court rejected challenges to the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence and to the admission of child advocacy center interviews; the provided text continues into additional assignments of error.

Holdings

1. The rape and gross-sexual-imposition convictions were supported by sufficient evidence; a victim's testimony is sufficient to establish that sexual conduct occurred, and corroborating physical evidence is not required in a rape case.
2. The convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the jury was entitled to credit the victims' testimony over conflicting defense testimony and evidence concerning credibility, memory, and Fulmer's alleged impotency.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the unredacted CAC interviews under Evid.R. 803(4), because the interviews were conducted for medical diagnosis and treatment rather than primarily for investigative purposes.
4. The trial court did not plainly err by failing to declare a mistrial after a defense witness's father yelled 'you're a liar' from the gallery, because the court promptly sustained the objection and gave curative instructions.
5. The trial court did not err by denying a continuance of sentencing because Fulmer remained able to file a timely motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and proceeding with sentencing did not prejudice that opportunity.
6. The trial court properly excluded evidence of the victim's sexual activity with someone other than Fulmer because the evidence was offered solely for impeachment and did not fall within an exception to Ohio's rape-shield statute.
7. The sentence did not violate the federal Ex Post Facto Clause or the Ohio Constitution's Retroactivity Clause because the mandatory sentencing provisions applicable to rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(c) did not substantively change during the relevant offense period.
8. Fulmer was not denied effective assistance of counsel because he failed to establish deficient performance and resulting prejudice concerning the CAC interviews, mistrial, sentencing, alleged recantation, or juror impartiality.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the trial court improperly admitted the victims' Child Advocacy Center interviews under Evid.R. 803(4), including whether the interviews contained impermissible investigative hearsay.
3. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to declare a mistrial after a courtroom outburst and the prosecutor's subsequent questioning.
4. Whether the trial court erred by denying a continuance of sentencing based on an alleged post-trial recantation.
5. Whether the trial court improperly applied Ohio's rape-shield law to exclude evidence of a victim's subsequent sexual activity.
6. Whether the sentence violated the federal Ex Post Facto Clause or the Ohio Constitution's Retroactivity Clause.
7. Whether Fulmer was denied effective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

affirmed