In re E.K.

2025 Ohio 330

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 3, 2025
• Docket: 11-24-05
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re E.K., 2025-Ohio-330.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PAULDING COUNTY

IN RE: CASE NO. 11-24-05

E.K.,

ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT CHILD. OPINION

Appeal from Paulding County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division Trial Court No. 20232036

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: February 3, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Austin C. Buchholz for Appellant

Joseph R. Burkard for Appellee Case No. 11-24-05

WALDICK, P.J.

{¶1} Juvenile-appellant, E.K., brings this appeal from the July 3, 2024,

judgment of the Paulding County Common Pleas court, Juvenile Division. On

appeal, E.K. argues that there was insufficient evidence presented to find him to be

a delinquent child for multiple counts of Rape, and that his delinquency finding was

against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm

the judgment of the trial court.

Background

{¶2} On September 1, 2023, a complaint was filed alleging that E.K. was a

delinquent child for committing four counts of Rape. There were two separate

alleged victims. Victim 1 was born in January of 2012, while Victim 2 was born in

February of 2015. The complaint alleged that between July 1, 2023, and July 31,

2023, E.K. committed Rape against Victim 2 in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)

(Count 1) and in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) (Count 2). The complaint also

alleged that between July 1, 2023, and July 31, 2023, E.K. committed Rape against

Victim 1 in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) (Count 3), and in violation of R.C.

2907.02(A)(2) (Count 4). E.K. denied the charges.

{¶3} An adjudication hearing was held on the allegations on June 10, 2024.

Ultimately the trial court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that E.K.

committed the offenses of Rape in Counts 1, 3, and 4. The trial court determined

-2- Case No. 11-24-05

that the State had not established Count 2 beyond a reasonable doubt. E.K. was thus

adjudicated a delinquent child. The trial court filed a written entry detailing its

analysis on June 24, 2024.

{¶4} Disposition was held July 1, 2024. A final judgment entry was filed July

3, 2024. It is from this judgment that E.K. appeals, asserting the following

assignments of error for our review.

First Assignment of Error

Appellant’s conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence presented at trial.

Second Assignment of Error

Appellant’s conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶5} In his first assignment of error, E.K. argues that the trial court erred by

adjudicating him a delinquent child based on E.K.’s commission of three counts of

Rape. E.K. argues that there was insufficient evidence presented to support the

adjudications.

-3- Case No. 11-24-05

Standard of Review

{¶6} “Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a

question of law.” State v. Thompkins, 1997-Ohio-52. Therefore, our review is de

novo. In re J.V., 2012-Ohio-4961, ¶ 3. In a sufficiency-of-the-evidence inquiry, the

question is whether the evidence presented, when viewed in a light most favorable

to the prosecution, would allow any rational trier of fact to find the essential

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259

(1991), paragraph two of the syllabus (superseded by constitutional amendment on

other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102, (1997), fn. 4)

following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). “In essence, sufficiency is a

test of adequacy.” Thompkins at 386.

Controlling Statute

{¶7} E.K. was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing two counts of

Rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and one count of Rape in violation of

R.C. 2907.02(A)(2). The relevant provisions of R.C. 2907.02 read as follows:

(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when any of the following applies:

***

(b) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.

-4- Case No. 11-24-05

(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.

Evidence Presented by the State

{¶8} E.K. was born in August of 2009. In the summer of 2023, E.K. lived in

a residence in Paulding County with his younger sister, his father, his father’s

girlfriend, and his father’s girlfriend’s two sons—Victim 1 and Victim 2.

{¶9} Victim 1, who was 12 years old at the time of the adjudication hearing,

testified that in June or July of 2023, E.K. came into the shower while Victim 1 was

bathing. Victim 1 testified that he was scared, so he dropped to the ground in the

shower. He testified that E.K. then forced him to “suck his penis.” (Tr. at 19).

Victim 1 testified that E.K. grabbed the back of his head and made him go back and

forth for at least 30 seconds. (Id.) Victim 1 testified that he gagged and he did not

know why E.K. made him do it. Victim 1 testified that E.K. also stuck his finger in

Victim 1’s anus.

{¶10} Victim 1 testified that approximately a month after the shower incident

he heard screaming in the bathroom and he went inside and saw E.K. naked on the

floor with Victim 2 in his lap. Victim 2 was nude and only 7 years old at the time.

Victim 1 testified that Victim 2 was crying and E.K. was penetrating Victim 2 anally

with his penis. Victim 1 testified that he saw E.K. grabbing Victim 2’s hips and

-5- Case No. 11-24-05

pulling him in an up and down motion. Victim 1 testified that at one point E.K. “had

white stuff coming out of his penis.” (Tr. at 31).

{¶11} Victim 1 testified that E.K. then told him to “Sit on my lap or else I’m

going to shoot you with an Orbeez Blaster.” (Tr. at 22). Victim 1 testified that E.K.

had difficulty penetrating him anally but he ultimately did against Victim 1’s will.

Victim 1 testified that he told his mother about the incident approximately a week

later.

{¶12} After the trial court determined that Victim 2 was competent to testify,

Victim 2 testified that E.K. forced him to put E.K.’s penis in his mouth and in his

“bottom.” (Tr. at 42). He testified that the incidents occurred in the bathroom. He

also testified that E.K. penetrated him anally 4 or 5 different times on different days.

Victim 2 testified that the incidents might have occurred in 2022 in May. Both

Victim 1 and Victim 2 identified private parts on a drawing while in court.

{¶13} After Victim 1 disclosed to his mother, the victims were interviewed

by law enforcement and job and family services. When the children were

interviewed, they were in the same room together with their mother.

{¶14} Testimony indicated that the children’s parents were at work during

the alleged incidents. The victims testified that E.K.’s sister was at home during one

of the incidents, but she was not at home during the other incident. Victim 1 testified

on cross-examination that he told law enforcement that the incidents all began with

the victims and E.K. “jerking off in a circle together.” (Tr. at 25).

-6- Case No. 11-24-05

Analysis

{¶15} E.K. argues on appeal that no rational trier-of-fact could have found

him guilty of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, he argues that the

State failed to prove that “sexual conduct” occurred with regard to all charges, and

the State failed to prove the element of “force” for the violations of R.C.

2907.02(A)(2).

{¶16} Contrary to E.K.’s argument, both victims testified to acts that would

constitute sexual conduct, and there was clear testimony that the victims were forced

to engage in the sexual conduct by E.K. Although E.K. argues that there was no

physical evidence to corroborate the testimony of the victims, and that the victims

were not credible due to some inconsistencies, these are matters for weight of the

evidence rather than sufficiency. In a sufficiency analysis, a reviewing court is not

to assess whether the State’s evidence should be believed, but whether, if believed,

the evidence would support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.

Schroeder, 2019-Ohio-4136, ¶ 59, (4th Dist.) citing Thompkins at 390 (Cook, J.,

concurring).

{¶17} In fact, it is well-settled that a rape conviction may “rest solely on the

victim’s testimony.” Schroder at ¶ 84. There is no requirement that a rape victim’s

testimony be corroborated as a condition precedent to conviction. Id. Here, the

child-victims testified to sexual conduct perpetrated upon them by E.K. There was

also testimony presented by the victims that E.K. used force. -7- Case No. 11-24-05

{¶18} Moreover, while E.K. argues that Victim 2’s testimony did not fit the

alleged time frame in the indictment, the trial court noted that juveniles can be

imprecise regarding the timing of incidents that happened in the past. Regardless of

Victim 2’s testimony, the older victim, Victim 1, was able to remember the timing

with greater clarity, and he specifically observed E.K. raping Victim 2.

{¶19} After reviewing the evidence in its entirety, we find that the evidence

is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that E.K. committed the

allegations of Rape as alleged. Therefore, E.K.’s first assignment of error is

overruled.

{¶20} In his second assignment of error, E.K. argues that his delinquency

adjudication for Rape was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶21} In reviewing whether a verdict was against the manifest weight of the

evidence, the appellate court sits as a “thirteenth juror” and examines the conflicting

testimony. State v. Thompkins, 1997-Ohio-52. In doing so, this court must review

the entire record, weigh the evidence and all of the reasonable inferences, consider

the credibility of witnesses and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the

evidence, the factfinder “clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage

of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Id. When

-8- Case No. 11-24-05

applying the manifest-weight standard, “[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the

evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn

the trial court’s judgment.” State v. Haller, 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.),

quoting State v. Hunter, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119.

Evidence Presented by the Defense

{¶22} E.K. testified in this case and specifically denied that any sexual

activity occurred. He testified that he had only been in the bathroom at the same

time as one of the victims a single time when someone needed a toothbrush.

However, he testified that there were times during the summer of 2023 that he was

alone with the victims in the residence.

{¶23} E.K.’s father testified at the adjudication hearing that the victims never

told him about anything sexual, but the victims did complain in the past about E.K.

shooting them with the “Orbeez” gun. E.K.’s father testified that there were five

cameras in the house, though none of them were in the bathroom in question. E.K.’s

father testified that only the victims’ mother had access to the cameras and nobody

had ever checked the camera footage as far as he knew.

{¶24} E.K.’s younger sister also testified, stating that she did not recall the

summer months in question very well. She testified that the children usually took

turns showering and that she would often go to her grandmother’s house up the

-9- Case No. 11-24-05

street to swim. E.K.’s sister testified that she never saw E.K. together with the

victims in the bathroom.

{¶25} In arguing that the trial court’s determination was against the weight

of the evidence, E.K. argues that he presented “far more credible” evidence than the

prosecution. (Appt.’s Br. at 10). The trial court specifically disagreed in its written

entry, finding that E.K.’s testimony “was not credible” while the testimony of the

victims was credible, particularly as they were consistent in the relevant details of

the incidents themselves.

{¶26} E.K.’s father’s testimony added little to the defense, only further

emphasizing that the children were alone together during the summer providing

E.K. the opportunity to commit the rapes. E.K.’s sister similarly indicated that she

would leave the house and go to her grandmother’s house up the street, further

providing E.K. an opportunity to commit the offenses. It is also notable that E.K.

committed the acts in one of the few rooms in the house that did not have cameras.

{¶27} Simply put, this is not one of the rare or exceptional instances where

the evidence weighs heavily against the result. After reviewing the record, weighing

the evidence and all reasonable inferences, we do not determine that the factfinder

clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. Therefore, E.K.’s

second assignment of error is overruled.

-10- Case No. 11-24-05

Conclusion

{¶28} Having found no error prejudicial to E.K. in the particulars assigned

and argued, his assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Paulding

County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.

MILLER and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.

/jlm

-11-