In Re Jorgensen, 07-Ca-96 (6-16-2008)

2008 Ohio 2967
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided June 16, 2008·No. No. 07-CA-96.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

OPINION *Page 2
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Shae Jorgensen appeals his adjudication and commitment by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division for rape. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶ 2} On November 11, 2006, Appellant, a seventeen year-old, high school student, attended a party at the residence of Alisha Abel. Alisha's mother was away for the evening visiting her boyfriend, but consented to a small gathering in her absence. Alisha invited a group of friends, including Justine Rathburn, who she invited to spend the night.

{¶ 3} At the party, Justine was upset due to a fight with her boyfriend, Todd Foraker. She had an argument with Foraker on the phone, and told him she was "going to go have fun." Chris Avery, a friend, overheard Justine say she was going to go "fuck" Appellant that night. Avery informed Appellant of Justine's comments. Justine told Alisha Abel she wanted to "hook up" with Appellant, and Alisha told Appellant. Justine denied the statements.

{¶ 4} Alcohol was served at the party, and both Appellant and Justine Rathburn admitted to consuming alcohol. Justine testified she consumed one, four-ounce drink of orange juice and vodka, two shots of vodka, some beer, and another orange juice and vodka, about an inch high.

{¶ 5} At the party, Justine was seen kissing Appellant. At some point during the evening, witnesses saw Justine and Appellant in a bedroom where they were kissing, groping, "grinding" and "petting" each other. *Page 3

{¶ 6} Later, Deirdre Chasteen, Alisha Abel's mother, came home after receiving a phone call from her landlord about the party. She was upset to learn alcohol was being consumed, and told those in attendance to leave or she would call the police. Chasteen asked Justine whether she wanted to stay with Alisha or go back to her parent's house. Justine told Chasteen she wanted Appellant to come pick her up. Chasteen, a bartender by trade, did not observe signs of Justine being intoxicated, and allowed her to be picked up by Chase Meldau, Appellant and Nick Roelle. Appellant and Justine then proceeded to Chris Avery's apartment. Alcohol was not consumed at Avery's apartment.

{¶ 7} Shortly after arriving at Avery's apartment, Appellant, Justine, and Chris Haggerty were in the bathroom together. Justine alleges Appellant and Haggerty engaged in sexual activity with her without her consent. As a result, Appellant was charged with rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c), as applied to adults in violation of R.C. 2152.02(F).

{¶ 8} The trial court adjudicated Appellant delinquent of the charge of rape on May 18, 2007. A dispositional hearing was held on July 6, 2007, and the trial court committed Appellant to the Ohio Department of Youth Services for a minimum of one year and a maximum period not to exceed the age of twenty-one. The trial court classified Appellant a sexually oriented offender.

{¶ 9} Appellant now appeals, assigning as error:

{¶ 10} "I. APPELLANT'S ADJUDICATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THEFIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE *Page 4 UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, §§ 10 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION; OR ALTERNATIVELY, WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST OF THE EVIDENCE.

{¶ 11} "II. APPELLANTS RIGHT TO A FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR TRIAL, AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, §§ 10 AND 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED BY DISPLAYS OF INTEMPERATE JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR AND EXPRESSIONS OF BIAS BY THE COURT AGAINST APPELLANT.

{¶ 12} "III. APPELLANTS RIGHT TO A FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR TRIAL, AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, §§ 10 AND 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT PREVENTED APPELLANT FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE ON THE ISSUES OF IMPAIRMENT, THE ALLEGED VICTIMS VERACITY AND WAS PREJUDICED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S SPECULATION AND ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY CONCLUSIONS.

{¶ 13} "IV. THE SENTENCE OF A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR INCARCERATION FOR THE SINGLE COUNT OF RAPE IS UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND IS CONTRARY TO LAW."

I.
{¶ 14} In the first assignment of error, Appellant argues his conviction for rape is against the sufficiency and the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶ 15} A review of the sufficiency of the evidence and a review of the manifest weight of the evidence are separate and legally distinct determinations. State v. *Page 5 Thompkins, 78 Ohio St .3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated byState v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 1997-Ohio-355, 684 N.E.2d 668. "While the test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the State has met its burden of production at trial, a manifest weight challenge questions whether the State has met its burden of persuasion." State v.Thompkins, supra at 78 Ohio St.3d 390.

{¶ 16} In order to determine whether the evidence before the trial court was sufficient to sustain a conviction, this Court must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. State v.Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, superseded by the State constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith (1997),80 Ohio St.3d 89.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Re Jorgensen, 07-Ca-96 (6-16-2008), 2008 Ohio 2967 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).

2008 Ohio 2967 (In Re Jorgensen, 07-Ca-96 (6-16-2008)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re E.M.P.
2024 Ohio 237 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Viars v. Ironton
2016 Ohio 4912 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
In re A.C.
2014 Ohio 640 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)