[Cite as State v. Williams,
2025-Ohio-506.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 2024AP0007
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
CORY WILLIAMS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 2023 CRC-I 000191
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: February 18, 2025
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Cory Williams appeals from the judgment of the Wayne
County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In late April 2023, a complaint was filed charging Williams with public indecency
in violation of R.C. 2907.09(B)(4). The offense was a felony of the fifth degree as it was alleged
that Williams was previously convicted of violating the same statute. Williams was later indicted
on the same charge.
{¶3} In May 2023, defense counsel filed a motion to determine Williams’ competency
to stand trial. Following an evaluation by an expert and a hearing, Williams was determined to be
incompetent to stand trial. Williams was subsequently restored to competency, and a bench trial
ensued.
{¶4} The trial court found Williams guilty of the charge and sentenced him accordingly.
2
{¶5} Williams has appealed, raising two assignments of error for our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE THE STATE
FAILED TO ESTABLISH ON THE RECORD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE CHARGES LEVIED AGAINST MR. CORY WILLIAMS.
{¶6} Williams argues in his first assignment of error that the finding of guilt was based
upon insufficient evidence.
{¶7} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must review the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the evidence before the
trial court was sufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 279 (1991).
An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to
determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of
the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The 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.
Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶8} R.C. 2907.09(B)(4) prohibits a person from knowingly “[e]xpos[ing] the person’s
private parts with the purpose of personal sexual arousal or gratification or to lure the minor into
sexual activity[,]” “under circumstances in which the person’s conduct is likely to be viewed by
and affront another person who is in the person’s physical proximity, who is a minor, and who is
not the spouse of the offender[.]”
A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the
person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain
nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that
such circumstances probably exist. When knowledge of the existence of a
particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person
3
subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to
make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.
R.C. 2901.22(B). Whereas “[a] person acts purposely when it is the person’s specific intention to
cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain
nature, regardless of what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is the offender’s specific
intention to engage in conduct of that nature.” R.C. 2901.22(A).
{¶9} Williams argues “the evidence failed to show that [he] knowingly exposed his
private parts with the purpose of sexual arousal under circumstances that would be likely to be
viewed.” Williams does not appear to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence related to his prior
conviction, so that will not be addressed in this appeal.
{¶10} On April 26, 2023, around 3:00 pm, Officer Michael Egbert was dispatched to the
area of Ohio Street and Spruce Street in Wooster. A caller reported that a man, who was later
identified as Williams, was openly masturbating in public. Officer Egbert learned that there were
two juveniles who witnessed Williams masturbating.
{¶11} Officer Gregory Kolek was also dispatched to the area. When Officer Kolek first
made contact with Williams, he was on a mattress in the back parking lot of the Salvation Army.
The mattress was visible from the road, which was described as being about six feet away. That
road had about five houses on it and several families lived there, but it was not a busy street or a
main street. Officer Kolek indicated that it was not unusual to see cars on the road or to see
pedestrians nearby. Williams told Officer Kolek that Williams was homeless, and he had been
there on the mattress since the prior evening. After Williams was placed under arrest and read his
Miranda rights, Officer Kolek asked Williams about what had happened. Williams stated that “he
was masturbating in the open with his penis out, [and] he did complete.” Williams acknowledged
that he saw some cars go by that afternoon but denied seeing a school bus or children.
4
{¶12} M.S., who was 11 years old at the time of the events at issue, testified that he was
on the school bus headed home around 2:45 pm when he looked out the window and saw a white
male on a mattress touching his penis. M.S. asserted that one other person on the bus also saw the
man. M.S. got off the bus at this location and, when he did, he could still see the man. M.S.
asserted that the man had his jeans pulled down to his knees and he did not observe the man to
have on any underwear. The man did not speak to him. M.S. indicated that he felt disgusted and
so he quickly walked home to tell his sister. M.S. was across the street from the man’s location.
{¶13} After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we
conclude that Williams has failed to demonstrate that the finding of guilt is based upon insufficient
evidence. Williams himself admitted to masturbating to completion in the open with his penis
exposed. This Court has noted that “sexual gratification is the motivation for engaging in
[masturbation]. That motive reasonably can be inferred whenever a person engages in that
conduct[.]” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) State v. Marrero, 2009-Ohio-2430, ¶ 24
(9th Dist.). Further, car and pedestrian traffic were not uncommon in the area, and, at the time,
children were getting out of school. In addition, at least two juveniles observed Williams’ actions
and, one of them, M.S., described being disgusted by what he saw.
{¶14} Williams’ first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
MR. CORY WILLIAMS[’] CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION[.]
{¶15} Williams argues in his second assignment of error that the finding of guilt is not
supported by the weight of the evidence. Williams asserts that he did not expose himself for the
5
purpose of personal sexual arousal or gratification and had no knowledge that children were
present.
In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and
all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine
whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact 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. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist. 1986). An appellate court should exercise the
power to reverse a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence only in exceptional
cases.
Id.
{¶16} Williams’ argument appears to sound more in sufficiency than in weight. As
discussed above, we concluded that Williams failed to demonstrate that the finding of guilt was
based upon insufficient evidence. Furthermore, the weight of the evidence supports that Williams
knowingly exposed his penis in order to engage in masturbation. This Court has stated that the
motivation for engaging in masturbation is sexual gratification. See Marrero, 2009-Ohio-2430, at
¶ 24 (9th Dist.); R.C. 2907.09(B)(4). Moreover, the statute does not require Williams to have seen
the children who observed him; instead, it requires only that Williams’ conduct was likely to be
viewed by minors. R.C. 2907.09(B)(4). Accordingly, Williams has not demonstrated that the
finding of guilt was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶17} Williams’ second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶18} Williams’ assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Wayne County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
6
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of
this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
FLAGG LANZINGER, P. J.
STEVENSON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
KIMBERLY STOUT-SHERRER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ANGELA WYPASEK, Prosecuting Attorney, and TIMOTHY P. BOGNER, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
