State v. Stevens

[Cite as State v. Stevens, 

.]


                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                    DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


  STATE OF OHIO                                 Case No. 25 CAA 03 0024

   Plaintiff - Appellee                         Opinion and Judgment Entry

  -vs-                                          Appeal from the Delaware County Court of
                                                Common Pleas, Case No. 23 CRI 08 0411
  JAMES STEVENS
                                                Judgment: Affirmed
  Defendant – Appellant
                                                Date of Judgment Entry: November 12, 2025




BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin, William B. Hoffman, Robert G. Montgomery, Appellate
Judges

APPEARANCES: Melissa A. Schiffel, Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney, Katheryn
L. Munger Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Russell S. Bensing, for
Defendant-Appellant
                                          OPINION

Hoffman, J.


       {¶1}   Defendant-appellant James T. Stevens appeals his conviction and

sentence entered by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, on one count of gross

sexual imposition, following a jury trial. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

                            STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

       {¶2}   On September 14, 2023, the Delaware County Grand Jury indicted

Appellant on one count of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02((A)(2) and (B), a felony of the

first degree (Count I); one count of sexual battery, in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(5) and

(B), a felony of the third degree (Count II); and one count of gross sexual imposition, in

violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1) and (C)(1), a felony of the fourth degree (Count III).

Appellant appeared for arraignment on December 1, 2023, and entered a plea of not

guilty to the charges. Appellant executed a written waiver of his right to a speedy trial.

       {¶3}   After several continuances, the matter proceeded to jury trial on January

28, 2025. The following evidence was presented at trial:

       {¶4}   Victim, who was 15 years old at the time of trial, testified Appellant and his

wife adopted her when she was 6 or 7 years old. Victim had three (3) half-siblings who

were also adopted by Appellant and his wife. The family lived in Ohio then moved to

Florida. The family’s Florida home had an in-ground pool. Victim recalled a time when

she was in the pool with Appellant and Appellant asked her “how much money it would

have taken for [her] to take off the dress that [she] was wearing that day.” Trial Transcript,

Vol. II at p. 240. Victim got out of the pool, dried off, and told her mother what happened.

Victim, her mother, and Appellant “had a lot of conversations about it,” but “didn’t really
move forward much, and [Victim] went to therapy.” 

 Appellant denied making the

comment. Victim admitted she told her therapist the dress story was untrue. When asked

why she told her therapist the story was untrue, Victim explained she did so “[b]ecause I

felt like no one believed me." Id. at p. 242. Victim stated the statements Appellant made

were, in fact, true.

       {¶5}    Victim recalled, after Appellant and her mother divorced, the family returned

to Ohio. Appellant and her mother had separate residences. Victim and her siblings

rotated a week on/week off with Appellant and her mother. When Victim stayed with

Appellant, he would come into her room during the night, lay down next to her, and talk.

Appellant repeated this behavior, but eventually began taking off Victim’s pajamas and

touching her. Victim revealed Appellant digitally penetrated her, performed cunnilingus

on her, and kissed her breasts. Victim admitted she never disclosed what Appellant was

doing, but explained she did not think anyone would believe her. During a family meeting

with her therapist, Victim indicated she wanted to live full-time with her mother. She also

stated she was not comfortable with the amount of Appellant’s physical touch.

       {¶6}    On July 25, 2023, Victim met with the youth minister from Life Point Church

and revealed Appellant was inappropriately touching her. That evening, Victim cut her

wrists and was taken to the emergency room. Victim stated she subsequently underwent

a full physical at Nationwide Children’s Hospital.

       {¶7}    S.R., Appellant’s ex-wife and Victim’s mother, testified she and Appellant

were married for fifteen (15) years and had six (6) children together, two (2) of the children

were Appellant’s biological children from a previous marriage and the other four (4) were

adopted. S.R. noted the adoption of Victim and her half-siblings was finalized in 2015.
The family was living in Westerville, Ohio, at the time, but eventually moved to the Tampa,

Florida area.

       {¶8}     S.R. recalled the family took a vacation to St. Augustine, Florida.     To

accommodate the family, S.R. booked a two-bedroom suite with a living room at the hotel.

While the rest of the family was in the living room watching a movie, Victim went into one

of the bedrooms to watch another movie. Appellant followed Victim into the bedroom a

short time later. After 20 minutes, S.R. proceeded to the bedroom to advise Appellant

and Victim the rest of the family was ready to go out. When she walked in, Victim was

sitting on the bed with her legs straight out. Appellant was sitting in a chair next to the

bed, rubbing Victim’s thigh between the bottom of her shorts and her knees. S.R.

subsequently had a discussion with Appellant, expressing her discomfort with what she

observed.

       {¶9}     One evening, Victim came into living room after she had been outside

swimming. Victim approached S.R., who noticed Victim seemed upset. Victim told S.R.

Appellant asked her how much money would it take for her to take off her dress. S.R.

was confused as Victim was in a swimsuit at the time. Victim shared she had worn a

dress that day. When S.R. asked Victim if anything else occurred, if Appellant had said

or physically done anything else, Victim responded, “No.” When Victim’s brother came

into the house, S.R. asked if anything happened between Victim and Appellant. Victim’s

brother thought she might be upset because Appellant was playing with him in the pool

rather than the Victim.    When S.R. confronted Appellant with what Victim told her,

Appellant denied making the comment. S.R. and Appellant implemented a safety plan to
ensure Appellant would not be alone with Victim. According to S.R., Appellant did not

abide by the plan.

       {¶10} S.R. and Appellant divorced in March, 2023. They entered into a joint

custody agreement with a week on/week off schedule. Appellant returned to Ohio shortly

after the divorce.   S.R. and the children remained in Florida until their house sold,

returning to Ohio in May, 2023. On July 25, 2023, S.R. was contacted by someone from

the church the children attended. Based on the conversation, S.R. asked the caller to

contact Children’s Protective Services (“CPS”) and provide the agency with the details

the caller had provided to her. S.R. contacted the police. That evening, Victim was taken

to the emergency department at Nationwide Children’s Hospital after she cut her wrists.

S.R. subsequently took Victim to the Child Assessment Center at Nationwide Children’s

Hospital.

       {¶11} On August 1, 2023, S.R. phoned Appellant while she was at the Child

Assessment Center. S.R. was in a small room with a detective and the call was recorded.

The call was played for the jury. During the conversation, Appellant admitted to S.R. he

went into Victim’s room in the middle of the night, “maybe twice to talk to her.” Appellant

commented it was “verifiable” he touched Victim’s leg. Appellant questioned why the

police took Victim’s clothes because if he had done what was alleged, he would have

taken off her clothes.

       {¶12} Alison Humphreys, a medical forensic interviewer in the Center for Family

Safety and Healing at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, described the forensic interview

process. The child is initially seen by a nurse, who takes the child's vitals. Before

conducting the forensic interview, the forensic interviewer meets with the caregiver to
discuss the process and collect background information. The interview is conducted with

only the interviewer and the child. To avoid having a child traumatized by repeated

questioning, the multi-disciplinary team watches the interview in a separate room. Each

interview is recorded. The forensic interviewer will confer with the multi-disciplinary team

to ensure she has thoroughly covered all matters. The forensic interviewer provides the

doctor with the pertinent history and the child’s disclosures. The child is then examined

by a doctor. The purpose of a forensic interview is to gather information from the child in

a trauma informed way for medical diagnosis and treatment.

       {¶13} Humphreys testified she conducted a forensic interview with Victim on

August 1, 2023. During the interview, Victim disclosed Appellant performed cunnilingus

on her and touched her breasts with his hands. On cross-examination, Humphreys

acknowledged trauma can affect the development of a child’s brain, including the

prefrontal cortex which governs lie telling. Humphreys also agreed repeated interviews

could have negative suggestive influences. On redirect, Humphreys explained, despite

the fact trauma can impact brain development, an individual who has suffered trauma is

not compelled to lie. Humphreys reiterated she tries to control suggestibility during her

interviews by asking for sensory details.

       {¶14} Dr. Nara Cho with the Center for Family Safety and Healing at Nationwide

Children’s Hospital testified she performed a comprehensive physical examination of

Victim. Before doing so, Dr. Cho consulted with Humphreys as well as a mental health

advocate. Dr. Cho stated a sexual assault exam kit was not performed because Victim

presented outside the time frame for forensic evidence collection. Dr. Cho performed an

anogenital examination. Dr. Cho did not observe any injury to Victim’s vagina, but noted
the tissue of the vagina and hymen heals quickly so the fact there was no observable

injury was not surprising.

       {¶15} Following Dr. Cho’s testimony, the State rested its case.         Counsel for

Appellant made an oral Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal with respect to the rape and sexual

battery charges, which the trial court denied.

       {¶16} Appellant called Dr. Kamala London, a professor at the University of Toledo,

as his sole witness.    Dr. London has spent the majority of her career researching

developmental psychology, specifically, children’s development and how such can inform

best practices in conducting forensic interviews with children. Dr. London has testified as

an expert in the areas of child and adolescent suggestibility, including indirect suggestive

influences; intentional deception by children and adolescents, including evaluation of

motives to lie; disclosure of sexual abuse and how it occurs; and forensic interviewing

techniques.

       {¶17} Counsel for Appellant presented Dr. London with a hypothetical involving

the facts underlying Victim’s allegations and the family’s response thereto. Dr. London

found the safety plan S.R. and Appellant implemented following Victim’s disclosure

Appellant asked her how much money would it take for her to take off her dress was “quite

a powerful form of suggestion.” Trial Transcript, Vol. III at p. 397. Dr. London testified a

child’s recantation then subsequent recanting of the recantation implies a form of

suggestibility which should be explored by an interviewer. Dr. London added recantation

is “not the typical way that valid, you know, abuse cases present.” Id. at p. 400.

       {¶18} Dr. London discussed deception, which she noted was a normal part of

cognitive development. Dr. London explained “early childhood trauma has been found to
affect children’s emotional and cognitive and brain development.” Id. at p. 403. Dr.

London added, “children who experience early childhood trauma have been found to have

deficits in those areas of impulse control, the prefrontal cortical cognitive processes,

emotional regulation, and so forth.” Id. In addition, Dr. London testified:



              Studies have found that children who have experienced early

       traumatic – you know, early traumatic experiences tend to lie more during

       adolescence, given the issues with emotional regulation and impulse

       control or even just experiences with, you know, a chaotic environment.

       There are a number of studies that found behavioral problems, including

       lying, to be more common among children who experienced early traumatic

       events.

              Id.



       {¶19} On cross-examination, Dr. London acknowledged a child who has

experienced trauma is also more susceptible to victimization. Dr. London agreed an

individual may recant a disclosure based upon different motives, including pressure from

other people. Dr. London reiterated it was best practice for an interviewer to ask non-

suggestive, open-ended questions and remain neutral.

       {¶20} After hearing all the evidence and deliberating, the jury found Appellant not

guilty of rape (Count I) and sexual battery (Count II), but guilty of gross sexual imposition

(Count III). On February 3, 2025, the trial court filed a judgment entry reflecting the jury’s

verdict. Appellant appeared before the trial court for sentencing on February 28, 2025.
The trial court imposed a four-year term of community control and classified Appellant as

a Tier I sex offender. The trial court memorialized Appellant’s sentence via Judgment

Entry of Sentence of Community Control filed February 28, 2025.

       {¶21} It is from his conviction and sentence Appellant appeals, raising the

following assignment of error:



              THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ENTERING A CONVICTION OF

       MURDER [SIC] WHICH WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE

       EVIDENCE, IN DEROGATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE

       PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO

       THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16

       OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.



                                                  I

       {¶22} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant challenges his conviction as

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

                                        Standard of Review

       {¶23} The term “manifest weight of the evidence” relates to persuasion. Eastley

v. Volkman, 

. It concerns “the inclination of the greater amount of

credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.”

(Emphasis deleted.) State v. Thompkins, 

, 387 (1997), superseded by

constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 

,

102 n.4 (1997); State v. Martin, 

.
       {¶24} In determining whether a judgment is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, an appellate court reviews the entire record, “ ‘weighs the evidence and all

reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines 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.’ ”

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 

 (1st

Dist.1983). Sitting as the “thirteenth juror,” the court of appeals considers whether the

evidence should be believed and may overturn a verdict if it disagrees with the trier of

fact's conclusion. See 

       {¶25} When conducting a manifest weight review, the question is whether the jury

clearly lost its way in resolving conflicts, resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice,

even if the evidence is legally sufficient. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387; State v. Issa,

, 67 (2001). Appellate courts have traditionally presumed the jury's

assessment is correct, given its ability to observe witnesses’ demeanor, gestures, and

tone, all critical factors in evaluating credibility. Eastley, 

;

Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 

 (1984).

       {¶26} A manifest-weight claim succeeds only in “the exceptional case in which the

evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” (Internal quotations omitted.)

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387. To reverse a conviction on manifest-weight grounds,

all three judges on the appellate panel must concur. Ohio Const., Art. IV, § 3(B)(3); Bryan-

Wollman v. Domonko, 

, ¶¶ 2-4, citing Thompkins, syllabus ¶ 4.
                                              Analysis

       {¶27} Appellant was convicted of gross sexual imposition, in violation of R.C.

2907.05(A)(1):



              (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:

              (1) The offender purposely compels the other person, or one of the

       other persons, to submit by force or threat of force.

              R.C. 2907.05(A)(1).



       {¶28} Appellant contends his conviction was against the manifest weight of the

evidence due to Victim’s lack of credibility and the forensic interviewer’s failure to explore

whether Victim was intentionally deceptive or had a motive to deceive. Appellant relies

on the testimony of his expert witness, Dr. Kamala London, in support of his contentions.

       {¶29} Dr. London testified the safety plan S.R. and Appellant implemented

following Victim’s disclosure of the dress incident was “quite a powerful form of

suggestion.” Tr., Vol. III at p. 397.     Dr. London added a child’s recantation then

subsequent recanting of the recantation implies a form of suggestibility which should be

explored by an interviewer. However, Dr. London did not opine whether any of the

Victim’s disclosures were actually the result of suggestion. In addition, Dr. London
discussed studies which have revealed children who experienced early trauma tended to

lie more during adolescence.

       {¶30} On cross-examination, Dr. London acknowledged a child who has

experienced trauma is also more susceptible to victimization.        Dr. London also agreed

an individual may recant a disclosure based upon different motives, including pressure

from outside people. The doctor’s testimony focused primarily on best practices in the

interview process. Her testimony provided generalizations, not specifics relative to Victim

herein.

       {¶31} Victim testified, after Appellant and her mother divorced, she and her

siblings rotated a week on/week off with each parent. When Victim stayed with Appellant,

he would come into her room during the night, lay down next to her, and talk. Appellant

repeated this behavior, but eventually began taking off Victim’s pajamas and touching

her. Victim revealed Appellant digitally penetrated her, performed cunnilingus on her,

and kissed her breasts. Forensic interviewer Alison Humphreys testified Victim disclosed

Appellant’s “mouth touched her vagina; that his tongue went inside of her vagina; and

that his hands touched her breasts." Tr., Vol. II, p. 330. During a recorded call with S.R.,

Appellant admitted he entered Victim’s room in the middle of the night and he touched

her leg.

       {¶32} “In weighing the evidence, the court of appeals must always be mindful of

the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” State v. Butler, 

, ¶ 75 (5th

Dist.). “ ‘The underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests

with the knowledge that the [trier of fact] is best able to view the witnesses and observe

their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing
the credibility of the proffered testimony.’ ” (Bracketed text in original.) State v. Williams,

 (5th Dist.), quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 

 (1984). “[A]n appellate court will leave the issues of weight and

credibility of the evidence to the factfinder, as long as a rational basis exists in the record

for its decision.” State v. Sheppard, 

 (5th Dist.).

       {¶33} Upon review of the entire record, weighing the evidence and all reasonable

inferences as a thirteenth juror, including considering the credibility of witnesses, we find

the jury's verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶34} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶35} The judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Costs assessed to Appellant.

By: Hoffman, J.

Baldwin, P.J. and

Montgomery, J. concur