State v. Bortree
This text of 2021 Ohio 2873 (State v. Bortree) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Bortree, 2021-Ohio-2873.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-20-67
v.
RALPH E. BORTREE, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 19 08 0261
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 23, 2021
APPEARANCES:
James P. Tyack and Holly B. Cline for Appellant
Eric C. Stewart for Appellee Case No. 8-20-67
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Ralph E. Bortree (“Bortree”), brings this appeal
from the December 21, 2020, judgment of the Logan County Common Pleas Court
sentencing him to 11 years in prison after Bortree was convicted by a jury of
attempted aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and R.C. 2903.01(B),
a first degree felony. On appeal, Bortree assigns error to several pretrial rulings by
the trial court in addition to arguing that there was insufficient evidence presented
to support his conviction, and that his conviction was against the manifest weight of
the evidence.
Background
{¶2} On July 30, 1993, Anita C. left the Quincy home where she lived with
her parents around 10 p.m. to run errands before her third-shift job at a plastic
injection molding company. She had started at the company the year prior after
graduating from high school. Once Anita was on her way to work, an individual in
a truck drove around her, stopped in front of her and blocked her path, forcing her
to stop her vehicle. A man Anita did not know got out of the truck and pointed a
revolver at her, telling her to pull her car over or he would put a “hole” in her. Anita
complied and pulled her car off the road. The man then took Anita’s keys and threw
them in the grass. Afterward the man told Anita to get in his truck and stay down
on the floorboards. According to Anita the truck was a red Ford Lariat XLT with a
-2- Case No. 8-20-67
license plate beginning with the letters “NM.” She also indicated the truck was a
manual transmission.
{¶3} The man drove around for a while with Anita on the floorboards and he
stopped in a wooded area Anita did not recognize. At that time the man got out and
came to the passenger side of the vehicle and told Anita to take her clothes off.
Anita complied. The man then started “touching” Anita, and he put his mouth on
her breasts and her “private areas.” Next, the man got into the truck and told Anita
to perform oral sex on him. Anita did so, and the man ejaculated in her mouth.
Anita opened the door and spit it out and wiped her mouth on her shirt.
{¶4} Anita was then allowed to put her clothes back on. The man drove
around rural areas for some time until he stated he had to urinate. He stopped near
another wooded area and came around to the passenger side of the truck and had
Anita get out. Anita indicated that the man came up behind her and that he then cut
her throat with a knife and shoved her over into the ditch.1
{¶5} Anita played dead until the man left. After the man was gone, Anita
got up and started looking for help until she saw the man’s truck coming back up
the road. She hid until he passed. Afterward she went toward the first houses she
could find, unfortunately getting caught in barbed wire at one point. Finally she
made it to a house and a woman answered the door. The woman aided Anita and
1 Anita saw the man wearing a sheath for a hunting-style knife but she never saw the knife itself.
-3- Case No. 8-20-67
911 was called. The woman stated that the cut on Anita’s throat was the biggest cut
she had ever seen.
{¶6} Anita was then taken to the hospital where her wounds were treated.
An emergency room doctor indicated that Anita’s neck was cut with an extremely
sharp blade and her carotid artery was just narrowly missed by the cut. In fact, the
doctor stated he could actually see the carotid artery in its “sheath.” Multiple layers,
including muscle, had to be stitched and closed, leaving Anita with a life-long scar
on her neck. The cut was approximately three inches long and a half-inch deep.
The doctor indicated that if Anita’s carotid artery had been cut, she would have bled-
out quickly.
{¶7} While Anita was at the hospital, a rape kit was performed. Anita’s
clothes were collected and oral swabs were taken. No vaginal swabs were collected.
Anita also spoke with police, giving them a description of the man as roughly 5’7”
or 5’8” tall. She said the man was in his late twenties or early thirties, kind of stocky
with short brown hair that was a little longer in the back. She described the man as
having a moustache, wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and a baseball hat. Anita worked with
a sketch artist to produce a sketch of the man. She also provided what she recalled
about the man’s truck, including the first two letters of the license plate.
{¶8} The matter was investigated by law enforcement. Voluminous records
were collected, which included all vehicles in the state and local areas that had
-4- Case No. 8-20-67
license plates beginning with the letters “NM.” This totaled approximately 800
pages of vehicles with numerous listings on each page. Law enforcement also
investigated possible ex-boyfriends and people at Anita’s workplace, among others.
DNA testing was in its infancy at the time, so there was blood-type testing done
from the clothes and swabs that were collected. Comparisons were made to one
potential suspect but he was excluded based on his blood type.
{¶9} Years passed with law enforcement unable to secure a viable suspect
and there was no new information on the case. In 2004 DNA was again sent out for
testing but the testing was unsuccessful.
{¶10} In 2014, a Logan County Sheriff’s Deputy began looking into cold
cases and he contacted BCI to see if advancements in DNA could now extract a
profile of the individual who had assaulted Anita. This had not been possible in the
past based on the small amount of DNA present. While nothing could be done in
2014, in 2015 technology had advanced to a point where BCI could extract a profile
of the individual from the semen/saliva mixture left on Anita’s shirt where she
wiped her mouth after the encounter. Once this was done, the assailant’s DNA
profile was loaded into the CODIS database.2 While there was not a match to a
known individual, the DNA profile was a match to another as-yet unidentified
assailant from a 1992 rape in Sidney, Ohio.
2 CODIS stands for “Combined DNA Index System.”
-5- Case No. 8-20-67
{¶11} The 1992 case involved a similarly-aged girl named Sheila who was
walking home from work one night in Sidney when a stranger drove by and stopped,
pointed a gun at her, and told her to get in the trunk of the car he was driving. The
man drove Sheila around for quite some time until he let her out of the trunk in a
rural area near some railroad tracks. The man told Sheila to take off her clothes,
then had her perform oral sex on him. While attempting to leave the scene with
Sheila, the man’s car got stuck near the railroad tracks and he spent a significant
amount of time trying to get it out. The vehicle was seen by railroad employees
who passed on a train. Eventually the man got the car out and he drove back toward
Sidney with Sheila in the car.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Bortree, 2021-Ohio-2873.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-20-67
v.
RALPH E. BORTREE, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 19 08 0261
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 23, 2021
APPEARANCES:
James P. Tyack and Holly B. Cline for Appellant
Eric C. Stewart for Appellee Case No. 8-20-67
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Ralph E. Bortree (“Bortree”), brings this appeal
from the December 21, 2020, judgment of the Logan County Common Pleas Court
sentencing him to 11 years in prison after Bortree was convicted by a jury of
attempted aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and R.C. 2903.01(B),
a first degree felony. On appeal, Bortree assigns error to several pretrial rulings by
the trial court in addition to arguing that there was insufficient evidence presented
to support his conviction, and that his conviction was against the manifest weight of
the evidence.
Background
{¶2} On July 30, 1993, Anita C. left the Quincy home where she lived with
her parents around 10 p.m. to run errands before her third-shift job at a plastic
injection molding company. She had started at the company the year prior after
graduating from high school. Once Anita was on her way to work, an individual in
a truck drove around her, stopped in front of her and blocked her path, forcing her
to stop her vehicle. A man Anita did not know got out of the truck and pointed a
revolver at her, telling her to pull her car over or he would put a “hole” in her. Anita
complied and pulled her car off the road. The man then took Anita’s keys and threw
them in the grass. Afterward the man told Anita to get in his truck and stay down
on the floorboards. According to Anita the truck was a red Ford Lariat XLT with a
-2- Case No. 8-20-67
license plate beginning with the letters “NM.” She also indicated the truck was a
manual transmission.
{¶3} The man drove around for a while with Anita on the floorboards and he
stopped in a wooded area Anita did not recognize. At that time the man got out and
came to the passenger side of the vehicle and told Anita to take her clothes off.
Anita complied. The man then started “touching” Anita, and he put his mouth on
her breasts and her “private areas.” Next, the man got into the truck and told Anita
to perform oral sex on him. Anita did so, and the man ejaculated in her mouth.
Anita opened the door and spit it out and wiped her mouth on her shirt.
{¶4} Anita was then allowed to put her clothes back on. The man drove
around rural areas for some time until he stated he had to urinate. He stopped near
another wooded area and came around to the passenger side of the truck and had
Anita get out. Anita indicated that the man came up behind her and that he then cut
her throat with a knife and shoved her over into the ditch.1
{¶5} Anita played dead until the man left. After the man was gone, Anita
got up and started looking for help until she saw the man’s truck coming back up
the road. She hid until he passed. Afterward she went toward the first houses she
could find, unfortunately getting caught in barbed wire at one point. Finally she
made it to a house and a woman answered the door. The woman aided Anita and
1 Anita saw the man wearing a sheath for a hunting-style knife but she never saw the knife itself.
-3- Case No. 8-20-67
911 was called. The woman stated that the cut on Anita’s throat was the biggest cut
she had ever seen.
{¶6} Anita was then taken to the hospital where her wounds were treated.
An emergency room doctor indicated that Anita’s neck was cut with an extremely
sharp blade and her carotid artery was just narrowly missed by the cut. In fact, the
doctor stated he could actually see the carotid artery in its “sheath.” Multiple layers,
including muscle, had to be stitched and closed, leaving Anita with a life-long scar
on her neck. The cut was approximately three inches long and a half-inch deep.
The doctor indicated that if Anita’s carotid artery had been cut, she would have bled-
out quickly.
{¶7} While Anita was at the hospital, a rape kit was performed. Anita’s
clothes were collected and oral swabs were taken. No vaginal swabs were collected.
Anita also spoke with police, giving them a description of the man as roughly 5’7”
or 5’8” tall. She said the man was in his late twenties or early thirties, kind of stocky
with short brown hair that was a little longer in the back. She described the man as
having a moustache, wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and a baseball hat. Anita worked with
a sketch artist to produce a sketch of the man. She also provided what she recalled
about the man’s truck, including the first two letters of the license plate.
{¶8} The matter was investigated by law enforcement. Voluminous records
were collected, which included all vehicles in the state and local areas that had
-4- Case No. 8-20-67
license plates beginning with the letters “NM.” This totaled approximately 800
pages of vehicles with numerous listings on each page. Law enforcement also
investigated possible ex-boyfriends and people at Anita’s workplace, among others.
DNA testing was in its infancy at the time, so there was blood-type testing done
from the clothes and swabs that were collected. Comparisons were made to one
potential suspect but he was excluded based on his blood type.
{¶9} Years passed with law enforcement unable to secure a viable suspect
and there was no new information on the case. In 2004 DNA was again sent out for
testing but the testing was unsuccessful.
{¶10} In 2014, a Logan County Sheriff’s Deputy began looking into cold
cases and he contacted BCI to see if advancements in DNA could now extract a
profile of the individual who had assaulted Anita. This had not been possible in the
past based on the small amount of DNA present. While nothing could be done in
2014, in 2015 technology had advanced to a point where BCI could extract a profile
of the individual from the semen/saliva mixture left on Anita’s shirt where she
wiped her mouth after the encounter. Once this was done, the assailant’s DNA
profile was loaded into the CODIS database.2 While there was not a match to a
known individual, the DNA profile was a match to another as-yet unidentified
assailant from a 1992 rape in Sidney, Ohio.
2 CODIS stands for “Combined DNA Index System.”
-5- Case No. 8-20-67
{¶11} The 1992 case involved a similarly-aged girl named Sheila who was
walking home from work one night in Sidney when a stranger drove by and stopped,
pointed a gun at her, and told her to get in the trunk of the car he was driving. The
man drove Sheila around for quite some time until he let her out of the trunk in a
rural area near some railroad tracks. The man told Sheila to take off her clothes,
then had her perform oral sex on him. While attempting to leave the scene with
Sheila, the man’s car got stuck near the railroad tracks and he spent a significant
amount of time trying to get it out. The vehicle was seen by railroad employees
who passed on a train. Eventually the man got the car out and he drove back toward
Sidney with Sheila in the car. He let her out of the car, told her not to look at him,
then drove off.
{¶12} Since the assailant in both cases was unknown in 2015, and since
BCI/law enforcement had no suspects to test the newly extracted DNA profile
against, law enforcement again hit a roadblock. However, as technology advanced
and changed, law enforcement became aware of “forensic genetic genealogy,”
whereby it was possible to identify investigatory leads through family genes that
had been publicly uploaded to genealogy websites.3 BCI could do something
similar to forensic genetic genealogy using the CODIS database on a much smaller
scale, but BCI was only doing this for a few cases per year due to its time-consuming
3 The DNA testing in this case and forensic genetic genealogy will be discussed in more detail, infra, in the sixth assignment of error.
-6- Case No. 8-20-67
and cumbersome nature. In order to expedite the process, BCI suggested that law
enforcement use a private forensic genetic genealogy company to see if any
investigatory leads could be developed in this matter.
{¶13} Law enforcement enlisted the aid of AdvanceDNA to conduct a
forensic genetic genealogy search. Once AdvanceDNA conducted its work, the
company provided possible genetic leads to the case that included four brothers in
the Bortree family: Ralph Bortree, Jeff Bortree, Walter Bortree, and Stoney York.
Jeff Bortree was already incarcerated for a heinous rape crime, so his DNA was in
the CODIS database. Jeff Bortree was not a match for Anita or Sheila’s assailant.
Law enforcement then looked at the remaining brothers and decided to first focus
on Ralph because he more closely fit the physical description provided by Anita and
his records indicated that he owned a truck matching Anita’s description around the
time of the incident with a license plate reading “NM4FA.” Further, at one point
Bortree lived in Quincy within 500 feet of Anita.
{¶14} Law enforcement officers conducted surveillance on Bortree,
particularly at his place of employment. Bortree was observed smoking cigarettes
on break, so law enforcement officers put a foil “trap” in the receptacle where
Bortree disposed of his cigarettes. The trap was eventually collected, containing
four cigarettes. The cigarettes were tested for DNA and three of the cigarettes, the
ones that were all “lights” with a white end, were consistent with the semen DNA
-7- Case No. 8-20-67
in Anita’s case at a rate rarer than 1 in 1 trillion.4 The other cigarette, with a different
style filter, was from an unrelated individual.
{¶15} Law enforcement officers then collected all the information it had
acquired, including the fact that Bortree and his wife had owned vehicles matching
the description of those in Anita’s case and Sheila’s case around the time of their
incidents, and law enforcement officers acquired a search warrant for Bortree’s
residence and his personal DNA. Photographs of Bortree and his vehicles from
around the time in question were collected during the search. Bortree’s DNA was
again taken and it was again found to be consistent, to a reasonable degree of
scientific certainty, with the DNA taken from Anita’s clothing.5 Photographs of
Bortree himself from the time period near to when Anita’s rape occurred were seized
during the search of his residence and they were similar to the sketch that had been
drawn with Anita’s assistance. Further, during the search, Bortree admitted to law
enforcement that he owned a truck fitting the description given by Anita, but he
denied knowing Anita and he denied any rape taking place.
{¶16} On August 20, 2019, Bortree was indicted in Logan County for the
attempted aggravated murder of Anita in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and R.C.
2903.01(B), a first degree felony. The rape and kidnapping incidents were not
4 Both Anita and Sheila testified that after their rape incidents their rapist gave them a cigarette, specifically a light cigarette. 5 It was similarly determined to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that Bortree provided the DNA that was on Sheila’s blouse.
-8- Case No. 8-20-67
charged because the statute of limitations had passed.6 Bortree pled not guilty to
the charge.
{¶17} On August 28, 2019, Bortree filed a “Motion to Dismiss Count 1
Pursuant to the Applicable Statute of Limitations Contained in R.C. 2901.13”,
arguing that the applicable statute of limitations had expired prior to the prosecution
filing its indictment commencing this case. Specifically, Bortree argued that the
prosecution was required to bring an action alleging the offense of attempted
aggravated murder within six years after the commission of the offense, applying
the statute generally governing felony offenses because R.C. 2901.13, the statute
governing the limitations of criminal prosecutions, does not explicitly state a period
for the prosecution of attempted aggravated murder. Bortree claimed that in this
instance the prosecution “waited” 26 years to file the indictment, well beyond the
general statute of limitations set forth for felony offenses. The state responded by
arguing that R.C. 2901.13 should be interpreted to treat the offense of attempted
aggravated murder the same as the offense of aggravated murder, which explicitly
has no statute of limitations.
{¶18} On September 12, 2019, the trial court issued an opinion discussing
the 1999 legislative amendments to R.C. 2901.13 modifying the statutory language
6 Similarly, the rape of Sheila was not charged in Shelby County because the statute of limitations had passed, falling just outside the timeframe of the newly enacted R.C. 2901.13(D), which extended the statute of limitations for rape even beyond 25 years in some cases that have DNA.
-9- Case No. 8-20-67
of the statute of limitations. Previously the statute used the terms “aggravated
murder and murder” when excluding those offenses from the general six-year statute
of limitations for felonies. Beginning in 1999, the statute removed the words
“aggravated murder and murder” and replaced them with the specific statute
numbers, specifying that the prosecution for a violation of R.C. 2903.01 (aggravated
murder) and R.C. 2903.02 (murder) had no applicable period of limitation. The trial
court concluded that by amending the statute to reference the statutory numbers
rather than the names of the offenses, “the legislative intent was to include attempts
to commit the offenses of attempted aggravated murder within the provisions of
Section 2901.13 of the Revised Code.” (Doc. No. 31). Therefore, the trial court
found that the prosecution of the indicted attempted aggravated murder offense was
not time-barred and that the case could proceed. The trial court subsequently issued
a judgment entry overruling Bortree’s motion to dismiss on statute of limitations
grounds.
{¶19} On December 5, 2019, the State filed a bill of particulars indicating
that it intended to use evidence at trial in Anita’s case from three other unsolved
cases involving allegations of rape and attempted rape/kidnapping/abduction. The
state felt that the cases could all be attributed to Bortree. Among those other cases
was Sheila’s rape in Shelby county.
-10- Case No. 8-20-67
{¶20} On December 20, 2019, Bortree filed numerous motions seeking to
exclude and/or suppress certain evidence from the prosecution’s use at trial. These
motions included: a Motion to Suppress/in Limine (other acts evidence), a Motion
in Limine to Exclude the State’s Expert Genetic Genealogy and/or DNA Witness
and Evidence, a Motion to Suppress/in Limine (DNA evidence), and a Motion to
Suppress/in Limine (evidence from invalid search warrants). Bortree also filed a
Motion to Dismiss Due to the State’s Prejudicial Preindictment Delay, arguing that
material, exculpatory evidence had been compromised or was unavailable as a result
of the State’s 26-year delay in prosecuting this case. The state filed responses to
each of these motions, arguing that exclusion and suppression were not warranted.
Bortree filed replies in support of his motions.
{¶21} On June 23-25, 2020, the trial court conducted a hearing on Bortree’s
numerous pending motions. Both parties submitted closing written arguments.
{¶22} On August 10, 2020, and September 30, 2020, the trial court issued an
Opinion and Findings and Additional Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,
overruling all of Bortree’s motions to suppress evidence relating to the DNA
evidence, the search warrants, and the testimony and reports of State’s DNA expert.
The trial court also overruled Bortree’s motion to dismiss finding insufficient
evidence of prejudicial pre-indictment delay. With regard to the evidence of other
acts, the trial court found evidence regarding the rape of Sheila to be admissible
-11- Case No. 8-20-67
under Evid.R. 404(B), but also found that evidence regarding the two other incidents
the state wanted to introduce at trial did not meet the 404(B) standard as it was
unclear that Bortree had even been involved in those cases at all. Accordingly, the
trial court granted Bortree’s motion in limine pertaining to those other cases, but
denied his motion in limine as it related to the rape case involving Sheila.
{¶23} The matter proceeded to a jury trial from November 2, 2020, to
November 5, 2020. At trial, the state presented the testimony of, inter alia, the
victim, Anita, numerous members of law enforcement, Anita’s treating ER
physician from 1993, multiple DNA analysts, and a member of AdvanceDNA
explaining how the forensic genetic genealogy created new leads in this case.
Bortree challenged the state’s evidence but did not call any witnesses on his own
behalf. Ultimately the jury found Bortree guilty of attempted aggravated murder.
{¶24} On December 18, 2020, Bortree was sentenced to a maximum 11-year
prison term. A judgment entry memorializing his conviction and sentence was filed
December 21, 2020. It is from this judgment that Bortree appeals, asserting the
following assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. 1 The trial court erred by failing to dismiss this case, as it was initiated after the applicable statute of limitations had expired.
Assignment of Error No. 2 The trial court erred by failing to dismiss this case due to the State’s prejudicial and unjustifiable preindictment delay.
-12- Case No. 8-20-67
Assignment of Error No. 3 The trial court erred by failing to exclude other-acts evidence related to the unindicted 1992 Sheila L[.] incident in Sidney.
Assignment of Error No. 4 The trial court erred by failing to exclude DNA evidence obtained without a warrant from Bortree’s cigarette butts.
Assignment of Error No. 5 The trial court erred by failing to exclude evidence obtained from the execution of two invalid search warrants.
Assignment of Error No. 6 The trial court erred by failing to exclude the testimony from Amanda Reno and evidence obtained from AdvanceDNA’s improper, unsubstantiated, and unverifiable claims regarding its genetic genealogy research in this case.
Assignment of Error No. 7 The cumulative effect of errors violated Bortree’s federal and state constitutional due process rights to a fair trial.
Assignment of Error No. 8 The evidence at trial was insufficient to support Bortree’s conviction.
Assignment of Error No. 9 The jury erred in finding Bortree guilty of attempted aggravated murder, as the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
First Assignment of Error
{¶25} In his first assignment of error, Bortree argues that this case was
initiated after the applicable statute of limitations had passed. More specifically, he
contends that the statute of limitations for a felony offense not expressly listed in
R.C. 2901.13 is six years. He argues that while the statutory subsection for
-13- Case No. 8-20-67
aggravated murder is expressly listed in the statute and aggravated murder has no
statute of limitations, attempted aggravated murder is not expressly listed in the
statute and therefore the statute of limitations for the crime must be six years.
Standard of Review
{¶26} The interpretation of a statute, such as Ohio’s statute of limitations
codified in R.C. 2901.13, is a question of law. See State v. Brown, 161 Ohio St.3d
276, 2020-Ohio-4623, ¶ 7, citing State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339, 2014-Ohio-
2139, ¶ 9. We review questions of law de novo. Id., citing Id.
Analysis
{¶27} The offense in this case was committed July 30-31, 1993. At the time
the offense was committed, the statute of limitations, as codified in R.C. 2901.13,
read as follows.
(A) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a prosecution shall be barred unless it is commenced within the following periods after an offense is committed:
(1) For a felony other than aggravated murder or murder, six years[.]
{¶28} Revised Code 2901.13 was amended effective March 9, 1999, less
than six years after the crime in this case occurred. The 1999 amendments extended
the statute of limitations for many crimes and it applied retroactively to offenses
committed prior to the amendments, provided that the statute of limitations had not
-14- Case No. 8-20-67
expired by the time the statute went into effect. State v. Rogers, 12th Dist. Butler
No. 2006-03-055, 2007-Ohio-1890, ¶ 8.
{¶29} After the 1999 amendments to R.C. 2901.13 went into effect, the
statute read, in pertinent part, as follows.
(A)(1) Except as provided in division (A)(2) or (3) of this section or as otherwise provided in this section, a prosecution shall be barred unless it is commenced within the following periods after an offense is committed:
(a) For a felony, six years;
***
(2) There is no period of limitation for the prosecution of a violation of section 2903.01 or 2903.02 of the Revised Code.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in divisions (B) to (H) of this section, a prosecution of any of the following offenses shall be barred unless it is commenced within twenty years after the offense is committed:
(a) A violation of section 2903.03, 2903.04, 2905.01, 2907.02, 2907.03, 2907.04, 2907.05, 2907.21, 2909.02, 2911.01, 2911.02, 2911.11, 2911.12, or 2917.02 of the Revised Code, a violation of section 2903.11 or 2903.12 of the Revised Code if the victim is a peace officer, a violation of section 2903.13 of the Revised Code that is a felony, or a violation of former section 2907.12 of the Revised Code;
(b) A conspiracy to commit, attempt to commit, or complicity in committing a violation set forth in division (A)(3)(a) of this section.7
7 Subsequent to the 1999 amendments, Revised Code 2903.13 has been further amended, but not in a manner directly relevant to this case. For example, prosecutions involving sexual battery, rape, or an attempt of those crimes has been extended to twenty-five years—or perhaps longer with DNA evidence. R.C. 2901.13(A)(4)/(D)/(L). The statute now reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
-15- Case No. 8-20-67
{¶30} When comparing the statutes, it is evident that the legislature changed
R.C. 2903.13 in 1999, removing the phrase indicating that the statute of limitations
was six years “[f]or a felony other than aggravated murder or murder” and the
language was replaced with language that specifically states “[t]here is no period of
limitations for the prosecution of a violation of section 2903.01[.]” (Emphasis
added.) The trial court found that “[b]y changing the language and focus of the
(A)(1) Except as provided in division (A)(2), (3), or (4) of this section or as otherwise provided in this section, a prosecution shall be barred unless it is commenced within the following periods after an offense is committed:
(2) There is no period of limitation for the prosecution of a violation of section 2903.01 or 2903.02 of the Revised Code.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in divisions (B) to (J) of this section, a prosecution of any of the following offenses shall be barred unless it is commenced within twenty years after the offense is committed:
(a) A violation of section 2903.03, 2903.04, 2905.01, 2905.32, 2907.04, 2907.05, 2907.21, 2909.02, 2909.22, 2909.23, 2909.24, 2909.26, 2909.27, 2909.28, 2909.29, 2911.01, 2911.02, 2911.11, 2911.12, or 2917. 02 of the Revised Code, a violation of section 2903.11 or 2903.12 of the Revised Code if the victim is a peace officer, a violation of section 2903.13 of the Revised Code that is a felony, or a violation of former section 2907.12 of the Revised Code;
(b) A conspiracy to commit, attempt to commit, or complicity in committing a violation set forth in division (A)(3)(a) of this section.
(4) Except as otherwise provided in divisions (D) to (L) of this section, a prosecution of a violation of section 2907.02 or 2907.03 of the Revised Code or a conspiracy to commit, attempt to commit, or complicity in committing a violation of either section shall be barred unless it is commenced within twenty-five years after the offense is committed.
-16- Case No. 8-20-67
statute, it is clear that the legislature intended a different result from that which
would occur under the previous statute.” (Doc. No. 31). The trial court determined
that by changing the statute of limitations to the statutory number rather than the
restrictive words “aggravated murder,” the legislature intended to exclude attempted
aggravated murder offenses from being time-barred under the statute.
{¶31} We agree with the trial court. Revised Code 2901.13, both at the time
of the 1999 amendments and currently, explicitly states there is no period of
limitation for the prosecution of a violation of R.C. 2903.01. This case
straightforwardly involves the prosecution of a violation of R.C. 2903.01 through
an attempt. Aggravated murder, as charged in this case through an attempt, reads,
No person shall purposely cause the death of another * * * while committing or attempting to commit, or while fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit, kidnapping, [or] rape * * *[.]
R.C. 2903.01(B). The attempt statute reads,
No person, purposely or knowingly, and when purpose or knowledge is sufficient culpability for the commission of an offense, shall engage in conduct that, if successful, would constitute or result in the offense.
In other words, this case involves a prosecution for engaging in conduct that, if
successful, would constitute or result in the purposeful causing of death of another
while committing, of fleeing immediately after, a kidnapping or a rape; i.e. a
-17- Case No. 8-20-67
violation of R.C. 2903.01. Accordingly this is a prosecution involving a violation of
R.C. 2903.01, and there is no statute of limitations.
{¶32} Moreover, we would note that while Bortree encourages us to find that
it was legislative oversight in failing to add “attempt” of aggravated murder into the
amended version of R.C. 2901.13 in 1999—and still currently a legislative oversight
since this language has not been changed—rendering the statute of limitations six
years for attempted aggravated murder, Bortree’s argument would lead to an absurd
result. Under the amended statute of limitations in 1999, an attempt to commit
crimes like kidnapping, robbery, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, etc. is
extended from six years to twenty years. In 2016 the limitations period for rape and
sexual battery, or an attempt thereof, was extended to twenty-five years. State v.
Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167, 2016-Ohio-5105 at fn. 2. It would be utterly illogical
that an attempt to commit the most serious crime in the Ohio Revised Code would
have a significantly shorter statute of limitations than an attempt to commit other
first (and some second and lower) degree felonies. For these reasons, Bortree’s first
assignment of error is overruled.
Second Assignment of Error
{¶33} In his second assignment of error, Bortree argues that the trial court
erred by failing to dismiss this case due to prejudicial and unjustifiable
-18- Case No. 8-20-67
preindictment delay. More specifically, he argues that his indictment 26 years after
the crime was committed caused numerous pieces of evidence to be lost or stale.
{¶34} “In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss for
preindictment delay, this court applies a de novo standard of review to the legal
issues, but we afford great deference to the findings of fact made by the trial judge.”
State v. Robinson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107950, 2019-Ohio-4458, ¶ 25, appeal
not allowed, 2020-Ohio-1634.
{¶35} In general, the primary safeguard against pre-indictment delay is the
applicable statute of limitations. State v. Carter, 5th Dist. Richland No. 07-CA-4,
2007-Ohio-5259, ¶ 16. However, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
also provides limited protection against preindictment delay. State v. Adams, 144
Ohio St.3d 429, 2015-Ohio-3954, ¶ 97, citing United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S.
783, 789-90, 97 S.Ct. 2044 (1977). The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized a
“comparable due-process protection under Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio
Constitution.” Adams at ¶ 97, citing State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984) at
paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶36} A defendant alleging a due-process violation based on preindictment
delay must present evidence establishing substantial prejudice to his right to a fair
-19- Case No. 8-20-67
trial. Adams at ¶ 98, citing United States v. Rogers, 118 F.3d 466, 475 (6th
Cir.1997). Importantly, unlike a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim, “no
presumption of prejudice arises in the due-process context when a preindictment
delay exceeds a particular length of time.” (Emphasis added.) Adams at ¶ 98, citing
United States v. Schaffer, 589 F.3d 414, 425 (6th Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, a delay
in commencing a prosecution is not justified when the state uses the delay to gain a
tactical advantage or, through negligence or error, the state ceases its investigation
and then later, without new evidence, decides to prosecute. Id.
{¶37} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that if the defendant makes a
preliminary showing of substantial prejudice, then the burden shifts to the state to
present evidence of a justifiable reason for the delay. Adams at ¶ 99, citing State v.
Whiting, 84 Ohio St.3d 215, 217 (1998). However, some courts, including the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals, have held that under the Fifth Amendment, the defendant
retains the burden of proof at all times and must affirmatively demonstrate both
substantial prejudice to his right to a fair trial and that the delay was an intentional
device by the government to gain a tactical advantage. Adams at ¶ 99 citing Schaffer
at 424.
{¶38} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “The burden upon a
defendant seeking to prove that preindictment delay violated due process is “ ‘nearly
insurmountable,’ ” especially because proof of prejudice is almost always
-20- Case No. 8-20-67
speculative. Adams at ¶ 100, quoting United States v. Montgomery, 491 Fed. Appx.
683, 691 (6th Cir.2012).
{¶39} In this case, Bortree argues that the 26-year delay between the incident
in question and his indictment violated his Due Process rights, if not the statute of
limitations, which we resolved in the previous assignment of error. In support,
Bortree argues that photos of the victim’s injuries had been lost; that various
witnesses had faded memories; that the 911 recording, if a recording ever existed,
had been lost; that if Anita’s car could be located there was no way to pull
fingerprints if they were ever present; that the vehicles used to abduct Anita and
Sheila were no longer available; and that railroad employees who saw a vehicle by
the tracks in Sheila’s incident had since died.
{¶40} The trial court analyzed the arguments and claims made by Bortree
and found that while some evidence had been lost in this matter since 1993 such as
the pictures of Anita’s injury, Bortree “has not demonstrated how the lost evidence
would assist him in his defense, leaving us to speculate as to its effect. Much of it
is hearsay and while it may be admissible in a [suppression] hearing of this nature,
presentation to a jury is another matter.” (Doc. No. 130).
{¶41} Giving deference to the trial court’s factual findings, while reviewing
the legal conclusions de novo, we agree with the trial court. Photographs of Anita’s
gruesome injury could have hurt Bortree’s case as much as helped it. Further, there
-21- Case No. 8-20-67
is no indication that any of the other evidence Bortree claims had been lost to time
was exculpatory; rather we would have to baldly speculate that the evidence existed
at all in some instances, that it would have been important, exculpatory, relevant,
and admissible. Mere speculation, the possibility of faded memories, inaccessible
witnesses, and lost evidence is insufficient to demonstrate actual prejudice. State v.
Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167, 2016-Ohio-5105, ¶ 21.
{¶42} Moreover, even if Bortree was able to establish some prejudice that
was not speculative, there is absolutely no indication that any delay by the state in
this matter was done to gain a tactical advantage. Rather, the state promptly brought
the charges once technology had advanced to a point that the assailant in this matter
could be identified. See State v. Danzy, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109433, 2021-
Ohio-1483, ¶ 26. Based on the evidence the state presented, the trial court found
that there was nothing in the record to suggest that the delay was designed or
intended to mislead or gain any technical or tactical advantage, and we agree.8 For
all of these reasons, Bortree’s second assignment of error is overruled.
8 Bortree’s primary claim was that the case simply was not worked on from 1993 to 2014 and that it was technically possible to find that he owned a red Ford XLT F150 Lariat with a license plate beginning with NM in the voluminous vehicle records. The trial court found this argument factually unavailing and we find no error with that conclusion. The DNA was tested again in 2004, albeit unsuccessfully.
-22- Case No. 8-20-67
Third Assignment of Error
{¶43} In his third assignment of error, Bortree argues that the trial court erred
by failing to exclude other-acts evidence related to the unindicted 1992 Sheila L.
kidnapping and rape incident in or around Sidney, Ohio.
Legal Standard
{¶44} “Evid.R. 404(B) categorically prohibits evidence of a defendant’s
other acts when its only value is to show that the defendant has the character or
propensity to commit a crime.” State v. Smith, 162 Ohio St.3d 353, 2020-Ohio-
4441, ¶ 36, citing Evid.R. 404(B). In other words, “ ‘evidence which tends to show
that the accused has committed other crimes or acts independent of the crime for
which he stands trial is not admissible to prove a defendant’s character or that the
defendant acted in conformity therewith.’ ” State v. Wendel, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-
16-08, 2016-Ohio-7915, quoting State v. Hawthorne, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 04
CO 56, 2005-Ohio-6779, ¶ 24. See Evid.R. 404(A). However, under Evid.R.
404(B), “the admission of ‘other acts’ extrinsic to the charged offense * * *” is
permissible in certain circumstances. State v. Lester, 3d Dist. Union Nos. 14-18-
21, 14-18-22, 2020-Ohio-2988, ¶ 43. See also R.C. 2945.59.
{¶45} In determining whether other acts evidence is admissible, the Supreme
Court of Ohio has set forth a three-step analysis. State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d
521, 2012-Ohio-5695, ¶ 19-24.
-23- Case No. 8-20-67
‘The first step is to consider whether the other acts evidence is relevant to making any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.’ [Williams at] ¶ 20, citing Evid.R. 401. See also [State v.] Hartman[, 161 Ohio St.3d 214, 2020-Ohio-4440, 161 N.E.3d 651,] ¶ 24, 28.
State v. Williams, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-19-70, 2021-Ohio-256, ¶ 16. “The threshold
question is whether the evidence is relevant.” Smith at ¶ 37. “The rule governing
the admissibility of other-acts evidence does not bypass the relevancy
determination.” Hartman at ¶ 25. But
the problem with other-acts evidence is rarely that it is irrelevant; often, it is too relevant. Hartman at ¶ 25; see 1A Wigmore, Evidence, Section 58.2, at 1212 (Tillers Rev. 1983). In the Evid.R. 404(B) context, the relevance examination asks whether the proffered evidence is relevant to the particular purpose for which it is offered, as well as whether it is relevant to an issue that is actually in dispute. Hartman at ¶ 26-27.
Smith at ¶ 37. For this reason, “the inquiry is not whether the other-acts evidence is
relevant to the ultimate determination of guilt. Rather, the court must evaluate
whether the evidence is relevant to the particular purpose for which it is offered.”
(Emphasis sic.) Hartman, supra, at ¶ 26; Smith, supra, at ¶ 37.
‘The next step is to consider whether evidence of the other crimes, wrongs, or acts is presented to prove the character of the accused in order to show activity in conformity therewith or whether the other acts evidence is presented for a legitimate purpose, such as those stated in Evid.R. 404(B).’
Williams, 2021-Ohio-256, ¶ 16 (3d Dist.), quoting Williams, 2012-Ohio-5695, ¶
19-20. Evidence Rule 404(B) states that other acts evidence may be admissible to
-24- Case No. 8-20-67
establish “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Evid.R. 404(B). “The key is that the
[other acts] evidence must prove something other than the defendant’s disposition
to commit certain acts.” Smith, supra, at ¶ 36, quoting Hartman, supra, at ¶ 22.
{¶46} These first two steps of the Supreme Court of Ohio’s analysis present
questions of law and are subject to a de novo standard of review on appeal. State v.
McDaniel, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190476, 2021-Ohio-724, ¶ 17; Hartman at ¶
22, citing Leonard, The New Wigmore: Evidence of Other Misconduct and Similar
Events, Section 4.10 (2d Ed.2019) (“[d]etermining whether the evidence is offered
for an impermissible purpose does not involve the exercise of discretion * * *, an
appellate court should scrutinize the [trial court’s] finding under a de novo standard”
of review).
{¶47} Importantly, “[t]he analysis does not end once a proponent has
established a permissible nonpropensity purpose for the admission of other-acts
evidence.” Hartman at ¶ 29.
‘The third step is to consider whether the probative value of the other acts evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.’ Williams[, 2012-Ohio-5695,] ¶ 20, citing Evid.R. 403. See also Hartman at ¶ 29.
Williams, 2021-Ohio-256, at ¶ 16 (3d Dist.). “As the importance of the factual
dispute for which the evidence is offered to the resolution of the case increases, the
-25- Case No. 8-20-67
probative value of the evidence also increases and the risk of unfair prejudice
decreases.” (Emphasis sic.) Hartman, supra, at ¶ 31.
{¶48} This third step “constitutes a judgment call which we review for abuse
of discretion.” McDaniel at ¶ 17; see also Hartman, supra, at ¶ 30 (holding that
“[b]alancing the risks and benefits of the evidence necessarily involves an exercise
of judgment; thus, the trial court’s determination should be reviewed for an abuse
of discretion”).
An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment. State v. Sullivan, 2017-Ohio-8937, [102 N.E.3d 86], ¶ 20 (3d Dist.). Rather, an abuse of discretion is present where the trial court’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. State v. Howton, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-16-35, 2017-Ohio-4349, ¶ 23. When the abuse of discretion standard applies, an appellate court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. State v. Thompson, 2017-Ohio-792, 85 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.).
State v. Miller, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-20-15, 2020-Ohio-5377, ¶ 11.
{¶49} In this case, the state sought to introduce evidence at trial of three other
victims of rape/kidapping/abduction, or an attempt thereof, separate from Anita, in
order to show “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
identity, or absence of mistake or accident” pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B). One of
those sexual assault victims was Sheila L., and the trial court permitted testimony
related to her incident based on the following analysis:
-26- Case No. 8-20-67
The Court finds that the incident involving Sheila L[.] meets the qualifications required by the Supreme Court [of Ohio]. There is sufficient evidence to connect the Defendant to that case to obviate any misleading of the jury. Further, there are sufficient similarities between the [Sheila L.] incident and the instant case to make it relevant to substantial issues in this case. They would include the use of a vehicle as the method of abduction, threat of violence, use of a revolver as an intimidating factor, requiring the victim to put herself in a place where she could not ascertain travel location, taking the victim to a remote location, manner of arousal and oral as opposed to vaginal sex. The Court further finds that such evidence would be more probative than prejudicial and will permit it to be presented to the trier of fact.
(Doc. No. 130).
{¶50} While the trial court permitted testimony related to the Sheila L.
incident in Sidney under Evid.R. 404(B), the trial court granted Bortree’s motion in
limine excluding the testimony of two other potential victims, reasoning as follows:
As to the incidents involving [two other women], the Court finds that these may not be presented to the trier of fact. There is not a sufficient indication of identification of Defendant to permit a connection without speculation. The State appears to suggest that there are sufficient similarities to the other two incidents to warrant their consideration. Standing alone, the two incidents without identification could not be considered by the jury. The purpose of such evidence is to allow a connection from the other acts to the instant case and not the other way [a]round. The State asks the Court to permit the jury to infer culpability in two previous incidents where there is no identification by reason of incidents wherein there is identification so that those two previous incidents may bolster the identification in the instant case. This is not a permissible use of such evidence. The Court finds that the prejudicial effect of such evidence outweighs any probative value it might have.
(Id.)
-27- Case No. 8-20-67
{¶51} Based on the trial court’s rulings, evidence was presented at trial
related to the Sheila L. incident but not the other incidents. Bortree argues on appeal
that the evidence regarding the Sheila L. incident was irrelevant to the actual
purpose it was offered, improper, and prejudicial, and that it should have been
excluded under Evid.R. 404(B).
{¶52} As noted by the trial court in its ruling, the evidence regarding the
Sheila L. incident was relevant, and it could have been used to establish numerous
admissible purposes under Evid. R. 404(B). For example, the evidence related to
Sheila L. is relevant to establishing identity, and to establishing modus operandi,
which means “method of working.” State v. Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214, 2020-
Ohio-4440, ¶ 37. In both Anita’s case and the Sheila L. incident, the women were
abducted at night, in a vehicle, by a man at gunpoint. The women were made to get
into hidden positions in the vehicle, driven to remote areas, then let out to undress.
Once the women were undressed Bortree either fondled them or attempted to do so,9
he had the women perform fellatio on him, he ejaculated in their mouths, allowed
them to get dressed, drove them around for a while, and allowed the victims to
smoke his light cigarettes. The details are similar enough to establish a kind of
“fingerprint” that would satisfy identity or modus operandi under Evid.R. 404(B).
9 Sheila told Bortree she had an infection, which stopped Bortree from performing oral sex on her.
-28- Case No. 8-20-67
{¶53} Notably, this case presents a very different situation than State v.
Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214, 2020-Ohio-4440, wherein the Supreme Court of
Ohio rejected 404(B) evidence when identity of the alleged perpetrator was not
actually in dispute. Further, Hartman rejected 404(B) evidence under a “modus
operandi” argument when the evidence contained very few similarities, thus lacking
a specific “fingerprint.” This case presents a much more specific behavioral
fingerprint than Hartman, where the only similarity was that the victim was
sleeping. Thus based on the similarities between this case and Sheila’s incident,
there were relevant, permissible purposes for the evidence under Evid.R. 404(B).
{¶54} Taking all this into account, the trial court then determined that the
404(B) evidence in this case was more probative than prejudicial, a finding that we
do not find to be an abuse of discretion given all that the evidence helps establish in
this matter. And, particularly unlike Hartman, since Bortree’s identity was in
dispute.
{¶55} Finally, we would emphasize that the trial court was clearly aware of
the danger of the Sheila L. evidence being used improperly by the jury, so the jury
was instructed on multiple occasions throughout the trial that the evidence was not
to be used to show propensity or bad character.10 For all of these reasons we do not
10 Given the jury instructions and the DNA evidence in this case, it would be hard to fathom how even if the 404(B) was erroneously admitted in this matter, it would be anything other than harmless. See Hartman at ¶ 66.
-29- Case No. 8-20-67
find that the trial court erred by permitting testimony related to the Sheila L.
incident. Therefore, Bortree’s third assignment of error is overruled.
Fourth Assignment of Error
{¶56} In his fourth assignment of error, Bortree argues that the trial court
erred by failing to exclude DNA evidence obtained without a warrant from Bortree’s
discarded cigarettes.
{¶57} Review of a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress presents a
mixed question of law and fact. State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1, 2015-Ohio-
1565, ¶ 32, citing State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. The
trial court acts as the finder of fact in evaluating a motion to suppress; therefore, it
is in the best position to resolve factual questions and evaluate the credibility of
witnesses. Burnside at ¶ 8. An appellate court must accept the trial court’s findings
of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Id. “Accepting these
facts as true, the appellate court must then independently determine, without
deference to the conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable
legal standard.” Id.; see also State v. Johnson, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-637,
2014-Ohio-671, ¶ 6 (“We apply a de novo standard in determining whether the trial
court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress.”).
-30- Case No. 8-20-67
{¶58} In this case, after law enforcement officers received new investigative
leads from AdvanceDNA, they conducted surveillance on Bortree. Law
enforcement officers observed Bortree purchasing “light” cigarettes and smoking
them outside his place of employment. Bortree was then observed discarding his
used cigarettes in a receptacle outside his place of employment—a receptacle that
was accessible to any of the other employees. Law enforcement officers then
created a foil “trap” to catch discarded cigarettes and they removed the trap after
Bortree had deposited several cigarette butts inside. The cigarettes in the receptacle
were tested for DNA and compared to the DNA that had been extracted from the
semen on Anita’s shirt.
{¶59} On appeal, Bortree argues that law enforcement improperly searched
and seized his DNA by taking the cigarette butts and testing the DNA on them. He
contends that the cigarette receptacle was placed on private property at his place of
employment and that he had a legitimate privacy expectation in his discarded
genetic material.
{¶60} Contrary to Bortree’s argument, there is generally no expectation of
privacy in discarded material. In Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241
(1960), the Supreme Court of the United States held that items seized by officers
from the wastebasket of the defendant’s hotel room should not have been
-31- Case No. 8-20-67
suppressed. The Court concluded that “petitioner had abandoned these articles. He
had thrown them away. So far as he was concerned, they were bona vacantia. There
can be nothing unlawful in the Government’s appropriation of such abandoned
property.”
{¶61} The ruling in Abel regarding discarded items has been applied in cases
throughout the country related to DNA taken from discarded items.
See Commonwealth v. Ewing, 67 Mass.App.Ct. 531, 854 N.E.2d 993
(2006) (holding that a defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in
cigarette butts that he voluntarily abandoned as trash, and the DNA evidence
obtained was admissible, absent evidence of coerced abandonment, even if the
defendant’s trash was obtained under a ruse); Piro v. State, 146 Idaho 86, 190 P.3d
905 (Ct.App.2008) (holding that a suspect did not have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in his discarded genetic material left on a water bottle in an interrogation
room); Commonwealth v. Perkins, 450 Mass. 834, 883 N.E.2d 230 (2008) (holding
that a defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his abandoned
cigarette butts or a soda can that he left in an interrogation room and were
subsequently tested for his DNA); Commonwealth v. Cabral, 69 Mass.App.Ct. 68,
866 N.E.2d 429 (2007) (holding a defendant did not maintain an expectation of
privacy in spit he left on a public sidewalk, or the DNA retrieved from his saliva;
objectively, society would not recognize his expectation of privacy in his spittle as
-32- Case No. 8-20-67
reasonable); People v. Sterling, 57 A.D.3d 1110, 869 N.Y.S.2d 288 (2008) (holding
that once the police lawfully obtained a discarded milk carton from an imprisoned
defendant, he no longer retained any expectation of privacy in his discarded genetic
material); State v. Athan, 160 Wash.2d 354, 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (holding that a
police ruse to obtain DNA from a suspect’s saliva after his licking an envelope was
constitutional and the DNA evidence was admissible under both state and federal
constitutions, because the defendant could not maintain a reasonable expectation of
privacy in his discarded genetic material, there was no recognized privacy interest
in voluntarily discarded saliva, and there exists a legitimate government purpose in
collecting a suspect’s discarded DNA for identification purposes); see also
Joh, Reclaiming “Abandoned” DNA: The Fourth Amendment & Genetic Privacy,
100 Nw. U.L. Rev. 857, 865 (2006) (“With abandoned DNA, existing Fourth
Amendment law appears not to apply at all.”).
{¶62} Based on the controlling and the persuasive legal authority, Bortree
could not maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in his discarded material, or
the genetic material contained upon it. In fact, this is precisely what the trial court
found when it denied Bortree’s suppression motion, reasoning as follows:
The Court finds that Defendant voluntarily abandoned his smoking materials by depositing them in a receptacle provided by his employer. At the time, he was in a common area shared by other smokers and was under observation by Logan County officers from across the street. The fact that the officers trespassed on the employer’s property to enable them to collect
-33- Case No. 8-20-67
the material violated no right of Defendant. Consequently, he has no standing to object.
(Doc. No. 130).11
{¶63} After reviewing the record and the applicable legal authority, we
cannot find that the trial court erred by denying Bortree’s suppression motion with
regard to the DNA taken from the discarded cigarettes. His arguments both to the
discarded material and his privacy interests are unavailing. Therefore, Bortree’s
fourth assignment of error is overruled.
Fifth Assignment of Error
{¶64} In his fifth assignment of error, Bortree argues that the trial court erred
by failing to exclude evidence obtained from the execution of what he characterizes
as two invalid search warrants. More specifically, he argues that the affidavits in
support of the warrants to search Bortree’s residence and his DNA contained
information unconstitutionally obtained, that they contained false or inaccurate
information, that they contained inferences that usurped the magistrate’s inference-
drawing ability, and that they lacked probable cause.
11 The employer’s property was not surrounded by a fence; rather, law enforcement walked up to the receptacle that was stationed outside of an employee door. It was located off a short driveway connected to a public access road. The officers conducted surveillance primarily from a gas station nearby.
-34- Case No. 8-20-67
Analysis12
{¶65} At the outset, we note that in Bortree’s fifth assignment of error, he
makes a number of broad accusations regarding issues with the affidavits in support
of the search warrants, but he does not cite to any specific paragraphs of the
affidavits or direct us to specific sections he claims where evidence was
“unconstitutionally obtained.” Similarly, he does not show which paragraphs he
feels are inaccurate, or usurped the magistrate’s inference-drawing authority.
Rather, he refers us to documents that had previously been filed in the trial court for
a more thorough treatment of the matter. Generally this is not compliant with the
appellate rules; however, having reviewed the record in its entirety, in the interest
of justice we will address the matter.
{¶66} In this case the affidavit for the search warrant of Bortree’s home
contained 32 enumerated paragraphs and a summary, which totaled approximately
7 pages of text. The affidavit described the Sheila L. incident, and the fact that
Bortree’s wife owned a vehicle consistent with the one Sheila identified in that
incident around the time the incident happened. The affidavit described other
assault/rape/kidnapping incidents that Bortree was suspected to be involved in that
the trial court later suppressed. The affidavit then described Anita’s incident, her
description of the suspect, his truck, and the license plate that began with “NM.”
12 To the extent that Bortree sought suppression related to the items seized in the searches, the standard of review from the previous assignment of error applies here.
-35- Case No. 8-20-67
The affidavit stated that Bortree owned a truck matching the description at the time
of the incident with a license plate reading “NM4FA,” consistent with Anita’s
description. The affidavit then detailed the DNA process that had taken place over
the years, including the use of forensic genetic genealogy. Further, the affidavit
indicated that Bortree’s DNA had been secured from the cigarette butts discussed
in the previous assignment of error, and that the DNA was consistent with the DNA
left on the clothing from both Anita and Sheila’s cases. Notably, the affidavit in
support of the search warrant for Bortree’s DNA was shorter, with roughly half as
many paragraphs focusing specifically on Anita’s case and the need for DNA
confirmation.
{¶67} Given the information in the affidavits and the testimony at the
suppression hearing, the trial court rejected Bortree’s challenges to the affidavits,
conducting the following analysis:
The affidavits are extensive and go into considerable detail. An affiant is obliged to demonstrate that probable cause exists to obtain a warrant. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge is at liberty to ask questions and to conduct a hearing to obtain additional information if he so desires. The evidence at the [suppression] hearing revealed that perhaps some erroneous information concerning minor matters was contained in the affidavit. The Court finds further, however, that such information was not critical to the Judge’s understanding, that he was fully and fairly apprised of the situation and that the statements contained in the affidavit were made in good faith and not with any intent to mislead. The Court finds that the affidavits were sufficient to demonstrate probable cause and were appropriately signed by the Judge.
-36- Case No. 8-20-67
(Doc No. 130).
{¶68} After reviewing the record and the trial court’s decision, we cannot
find that the trial court erred by finding that the affidavits supported a determination
of probable cause. The key details are present in the affidavits, such as Anita’s
incident, her recollection of the event and identifying characteristics, and the DNA
that matched Bortree. Further, the vehicles also matched Anita’s description and
the partial license plate she provided.
{¶69} While one of the affidavits may have had extraneous details about
other unindicted offenses Bortree was suspected of that were later suppressed, and
while both of the affidavits may not have contained all of the DNA and forensic
genealogy details, the affidavits were readily sufficient for a neutral and detached
magistrate to find that probable cause was present to issue the search warrants. We
do not find that any of the claimed inaccuracies or “improper” inferences rendered
the warrants invalid.
{¶70} Importantly, a reviewing court must read the affidavits holistically,
examining the totality of the circumstances and employing a healthy dose of
common sense. United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 502 (6th Cir.2017), citing
United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 479 (6th Cir.2001). If an inference is
obvious from the factual context, a reviewing court should indulge it. United States
v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 975 (6th Cir.2000) (en banc). Here, the facts outlined in the
-37- Case No. 8-20-67
affidavits are sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to search Bortree’s
home and his DNA (for further confirmation).
{¶71} Moreover, the officers in this case obtained warrants signed by a judge
who determined that probable cause was present in this matter. There is nothing in
the record to indicate that the officers conducting the search pursuant to the warrants
were acting in anything other than good faith when they conducted the search, thus
there could be no suppression in this case for that reason alone. “The United States
Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule should not be applied in
situations in which an officer has relied in good faith on a warrant issued by a
neutral and detached magistrate or judicial officer, notwithstanding the fact that the
warrant is later found to be invalid.” State v. Dibble, 159 Ohio St.3d 322, 2020-
Ohio-546, ¶ 17, cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 851. For all of these reasons we cannot find
that the trial court erred; therefore, Bortree’s fifth assignment of error is overruled.
Sixth Assignment of Error
{¶72} In his sixth assignment of error, Bortree argues that the trial court erred
by failing to exclude testimony and evidence related to the work conducted in this
matter by AdvanceDNA.
The DNA and Forensic Genetic Genealogy Process in this Case
{¶73} At the suppression hearing in this matter, various witnesses detailed
the DNA analysis in this case as it was conducted over the years, the improvements
-38- Case No. 8-20-67
in the DNA process that led to a DNA profile of Anita’s assailant eventually being
extracted and placed into CODIS, and, finally, the involvement of AdvanceDNA in
the burgeoning field of forensic genetic genealogy to provide law enforcement with
possible investigatory leads in this case.
{¶74} Erika Jimenez, a BCI DNA analyst, testified that in 1993 a number of
items were submitted for testing in this case including, inter alia, a black t-shirt and
oral swabs from Anita. Jimenez testified that in 1993 “they did forensic biology,
which is looking for body fluids such as blood and semen as well as doing blood
typing for ABO blood typing.” (June 24, 2020, Tr. at 172). She clarified that they
were not doing “DNA” testing at the time as it is now known, merely blood typing.
(Id. at 173). A possible suspect was submitted in Anita’s case in 1993 but he was
excluded through the blood-type testing that was done at the time.
{¶75} As BCI was not doing DNA analysis at the time, the oral swabs taken
from Anita in 1993 were sent to a private company; however, the private company
found no foreign DNA in the oral swabs that could be extracted, despite the fact that
the oral swabs were “sperm search positive.” (Id. at 176). Jimenez testified that the
DNA testing done at the time was an “older technology, and we need[ed] a lot of
DNA to get a profile. So there wasn’t a lot of sperm there. So it’s not surprising
that we just found the victim’s [DNA] whose oral swab it was from.” (Id. at 176-
177).
-39- Case No. 8-20-67
{¶76} Jimenez testified that 11 years later, in 2004, newer technology
emerged that needed less DNA to get a profile. Jimenez testified that the sample in
this case was sent to an outside lab due to backlogs at BCI. The oral swabs were
sent along with Anita’s shorts, but only Anita’s DNA was able to be identified. Thus
in 2004 the technology had not improved to a significant degree to extract a profile.
{¶77} In 2014, Detective Phil Bailey of the Logan County Sheriff’s
Department called BCI asking if any new developments in the DNA field could
assist in this case. Jimenez testified that a new kit called “Identifiler” had been
released in recent years and that BCI would try and check the semen positive shirt
since that had not been done yet. The 2014 extraction showed Anita’s DNA and
that there was someone else’s DNA present on the shirt, but a full DNA profile
could not be developed at that time with the Identifiler technology. However,
Jimenez testified she was aware that a newer technology would be “coming on line”
soon, so they waited for the new technology to test for DNA again.
{¶78} Jimenez testified that in 2015, the “GlobalFiler” kit came “on line” so
they tested the DNA from the shirt with the new system. This time, a DNA profile
was extracted and that a profile of an unknown male was uploaded into the CODIS
database “which searches [a sample] against other samples that are known and
unknown [and already in the system] to see if we could figure out who contributed
that DNA to the sample.” (June 24, 2020, Tr. at 185). Through CODIS, it was
-40- Case No. 8-20-67
learned that the DNA sample from Anita’s case matched the DNA sample from the
perpetrator in the Sheila L. case. Thus while the perpetrator in both instances was
unknown at that time—a “known” sample of his DNA was not in the CODIS
database—it was, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the same perpetrator
in both Anita’s case and Sheila’s case.13
{¶79} Without a suspect to check the DNA against, there was nothing more
BCI could do at the time. In 2018, Detective Bailey again called BCI asking if
anything else could be done with the unknown male profile. BCI had started doing
something called “familial DNA testing,” which used the “CODIS database and it
searches the database against your unknown sample to look for any first-degree
relatives that might be present in the system. So we’re looking for a brother, a
father, a son to the unknown sample.” (Id. at 193). Through the “familial DNA
testing” the relative that could be found would have to be a first-degree relative of
the person already in the CODIS system.
{¶80} Jimenez testified that while BCI started doing familial DNA testing in
late 2016, it took such a long time and so many resources that only three to four
cases per year were being taken through familial testing. Jimenez testified that the
backlog was already over thirty cases long, so while she wanted to get Anita’s case
on the list, a committee determined what cases were next for familial searches.
13 One suspect at the time had his DNA checked against the newly extracted profile, but he was excluded.
-41- Case No. 8-20-67
Anita’s case was added to the list, but Jimenez was aware that “genetic genealogy”
was another tool that could be used if police departments had money to do it, and
“that might be a faster route [than familial DNA testing through BCI] because of
the only three to four cases that were being done per year for the familial at our state
lab.” (June 24, 2020, Tr. at 195).
{¶81} The Logan County Sheriff’s Department obtained funding and
decided to proceed with the “genetic genealogy.” A specific DNA sample called a
“single-source sample” had to be produced through a process known as differential
extraction. That was conducted successfully and the sample was sent to the private
lab “DNA Solutions.” According to Jimenez, “Government labs right now don’t
have the capability to do the technology that is needed for the genetic genealogy. It
is different from familial.” (Id. at 199). DNA Solutions analyzed the DNA and
generated all the necessary data, then provided it to the genetic genealogist at
AdvanceDNA to do her work. According to Jimenez, the genetic genealogist is
generally “trying to see who shares a similar DNA to this [unknown] sample to try
and to see where this person comes from or who is related to this person; [whereas]
we’re doing our comparisons to try to exclude people as being the sample.” (Id. at
200). Once DNA Solutions provided the necessary data to AdvanceDNA in the
appropriate format, the genetic genealogy company was able to begin the research
part of building out a possible family tree to create investigative leads.
-42- Case No. 8-20-67
{¶82} Amanda Reno, owner and director of forensic case management for
Advance DNA, provided testimony as to the company’s work on genetic genealogy
at the suppression hearing. Reno testified that the company “focuses on helping law
enforcement identify DNA samples that either belong to unknown decendents [sic]
or to DNA samples that were found at a crime scenes, and we use genetic genealogy
techniques to do so.” (Id. at 257-258).
{¶83} Reno testified there were no specific degrees for genetic genealogy,
but she had attended the “Forensic Genealogy Institute” and had attended (and
taught) other course work. (Tr. at 258). Reno testified that “law enforcement and
genealogy just really started being used [together] in the [sic] mid 2018.” (Id. at
259). Reno testified that prior to that shift she had helped identify “John or Jane
Does who were deceased, such as remains found in the woods, things of that nature.
And prior to that, I helped living Does, individuals who were abandoned at birth,
identify who they are genetically.” (Id. at 259).
{¶84} As to her work in this case, Reno testified that she was contacted by
Erika Jimenez and Detective Phil Bailey. She indicated that in the initial
conversation Reno needed to determine if the case was eligible for genetic
genealogy. She testified the criteria she needed was a sufficient quantity of DNA,
and that the case had to involve violent crime. Once those criteria were met,
AdvanceDNA agreed to work on the case. As part of that work, AdvanceDNA
-43- Case No. 8-20-67
requested information on the case, including lists of important locations to aid in
understanding the geographic region.
{¶85} Reno testified that AdvanceDNA received the “DNA file” from DNA
Solutions, which contained approximately 800,000 lines of information. That file
would then get uploaded to public genealogy sites “GEDmatch” and
“FamilyTree.com.”14 (June 24, 2020, Tr. at 269). These websites allow individuals
who have their own DNA file, obtained through popular DNA testing sites like
23andMe and AncestryDNA, to upload the DNA file and find close or distant
relatives. Reno testified that through the process she can look at relationships to an
unknown DNA sample that “extend out to six cousins and beyond.” (Id. at 272).
“We’re looking at very small quantities of DNA that are shared, so it can be anything
from a close relative that we find or a distant relative that we find in that list.” (Id.
at 272-73).
{¶86} Reno indicated that the file in this case was uploaded to GEDmatch on
May 28, 2019. At that time the file was uploaded as “law enforcement use for an
identification of a DNA sample tied to a violent crime.” (Id. at 274). This required
14 “GEDmatch is different from its competitors in that it is not a DNA testing service, but a publicly searchable database that allows users who have had their DNA analyzed elsewhere to more deeply investigate their ancestry.” Selvin, A Too Permeating Police Surveillance: Consumer Genetic Genealogy & the Fourth Amendment After Carpenter, 53 Loy. L.A.L. Rev. 1015, 1020 (2020)
-44- Case No. 8-20-67
certification from the Logan County Sheriff’s Department and it restricted to a
degree the use of the public site.15
{¶87} Once the profile was uploaded, AdvanceDNA learned that a woman
named Judy A. was the closest familial match present in GEDmatch, and Judy’s
daughter Katie had uploaded a family tree to the site.16 According to Reno,
AdvanceDNA received a hierarchy list of “largest quantity of DNA shared with the
DNA sample to the smallest quantity,” after uploading the file. (June 24, 2020, Tr.
at 282). This “autosomnal DNA” statistic was produced, which showed the average
DNA shared by pairs of relatives “in both percentage and centimorgans.” (Id. at
283). In the case of identical twins, 100 percent DNA would be shared, but the
percentage lessens as family members are further removed.17 According to the data
received, Judy A. shared a little less than three percent of her DNA with the subject
DNA. Reno testified that based on this percentage, or the centimorgans, this meant
that AdvanceDNA was looking for someone who was “possibly a second cousin”
15 On May 20, 2019, GEDmatch changed the structure of its database “pertaining to how low enforcement accesses matching.” (June 24, 2020, Tr. at 277). At that time “Law enforcement samples uploaded will only be compared to individuals for matching if the individual has selected that they would like to participate in law enforcement matching.” (Id. at 277-278). In other words, individuals who uploaded their genetic information to the site had to affirmatively “opt in” and allow law enforcement to use their DNA in a manner as it was being used in this case. 16 “A relative’s genetic data can act as a silent witness, or genetic informant, against the person who left the DNA at the crime scene. This ‘genetic informant’ wordlessly guides law enforcement to a handful of potential suspects, by simply informing them that the suspect is very likely a third-cousin, nephew, or grandson of the person in the DTC database. Public records and newspaper clippings then provide the necessary details to put a name and location to the crime-scene DNA.” JD, Why We Fear Genetic Informants: Using Genetic Genealogy to Catch Serial Killers, 21 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 1, 4 (2019) 17 Testimony indicated Bortree did not have an identical twin.
-45- Case No. 8-20-67
to Judy A. Reno testified, “a second cousin shares * * * great grandparents with the
DNA sample.” (Id. at 285).
{¶88} AdvanceDNA then used information that had already been made
publicly available on GEDmatch as well as other public records like census records,
marriage records, and birth records to build out a family tree from Judy A. and her
daughter. They used the geographic information of the crimes to help focus the
areas of the family tree to build, seeking to find the second-cousin-type relationship
to give law enforcement some individuals to look into.
{¶89} Ultimately AdvanceDNA created a “Genetic genealogy leads
summary report” for the Logan County Sheriff’s Department. Based on the DNA,
AdvanceDNA felt that law enforcement should look into four brothers in particular:
Jeffrey Bortree, Ralph Bortree, Walter Bortree, and Stoney York. However, Jeffrey
Bortree could be excluded by law enforcement immediately because he was already
incarcerated for a different rape and his DNA was in the CODIS database, thus it
was not a match in this case.
{¶90} Law enforcement took the information from AdvanceDNA as a lead
and began investigating the remaining brothers. Law enforcement focused first on
Ralph Bortree because he fit the description of the assailant at the time of the crimes,
he and his wife owned vehicles at the time of the crimes that were consistent with
the descriptions provided by Anita and Sheila, and Ralph lived in Quincy in 1993.
-46- Case No. 8-20-67
After narrowing in on Bortree, law enforcement conducted surveillance on him, and
eventually collected his cigarettes for DNA samples, finding the DNA left on them
to be a match to the DNA left on Anita’s shirt (and also a match to Sheila’s case).
Analysis18
{¶91} Bortree argued to the trial court, and renews his argument on appeal,
that Amanda Reno’s testimony should have been excluded from trial because the
state never established that Reno complied with GEDmatch’s terms of service, that
Reno did not preserve all of her research to show how the Bortree family was
developed as a lead, and finally that Reno’s research relied, in part, upon unverified
family trees uploaded on public ancestry websites by unknown individuals.
Notably, Bortree cites no legal authority to support his position that the trial court
erred in this matter by permitting Reno to testify at trial.
{¶92} Nevertheless, addressing Bortree’s concerns, Reno did testify that she
complied with GEDmatch’s terms of service. (June 24, 2020, Tr. at 333-335).
There is no evidence to the contrary in the record, thus this argument is not well-
taken.
{¶93} As to Bortree’s claim that Reno did not preserve all of her research,
she gave a detailed accounting of AdvanceDNA’s work in this case, including the
provision of a written report and a slideshow that showed how AdvanceDNA went
18 The suppression standard of review previously cited would be applicable again here since Bortree was seeking suppression.
-47- Case No. 8-20-67
from one relative to the next, where the company focused the search, and how the
company narrowed the search based on geography. It is unclear what more
AdvanceDNA could have produced to aid the matter, and Reno was readily
available for cross-examination both at the suppression hearing and at trial for any
questions by the defense. Thus Bortree’s argument that AdvanceDNA did not do
enough to show its process is not well-taken.
{¶94} Finally, Bortree argues that Reno’s research relied, in part, on public
information uploaded to public websites by unknown individuals. However, the
company also relied upon verifiable records and Reno indicated that the company
checked to verify information from the family trees uploaded by members of the
public.
{¶95} Notwithstanding that point, AdvanceDNA was only providing
possible leads for police to further investigate, and AdvanceDNA emphasized this
from the very beginning. Reno actually testified that if none of the Bortree brothers
panned out AdvanceDNA would have built out the family trees further to find
another branch where the specific families intersected in hopes of finding a better
suspect. In sum, the information provided by AdvanceDNA was merely a tool to
provide leads to law enforcement. Law enforcement was then able to check the
vehicles Bortree owned, etc., to find if he would be a good possible suspect. Thus
Bortree’s argument on this issue is not well-taken.
-48- Case No. 8-20-67
{¶96} Notably, forensic genetic genealogy is relatively a new field, but there
are numerous law review articles that have spoken about its use, especially since it
was used as a tool to help catch the infamous Golden State Killer. See, e.g., Selvin, A
Too Permeating Police Surveillance: Consumer Genetic Genealogy & the Fourth
Amendment After Carpenter, 53 Loy. L.A.L. Rev. 1015 (2020); Brown, Why We
Fear Genetic Informants: Using Genetic Genealogy to Catch Serial Killers, 21
Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 118 (2019); Romine, Crime, DNA, & Family:
Protecting Genetic Privacy in the World of 23andMe, 53 Ariz. St. L.J. 367 (2021).
In this case the trial court found that the evidence did not establish any illegal
activity by engaging in forensic genetic genealogy research, and the research did
not, in fact, yield any substantive evidence that Bortree had engaged in any criminal
activity. Rather, “[i]t merely narrowed the focus of law enforcement.” (Doc. No.
130). We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the research merely narrowed
the focus of law enforcement, and consequently we can find no error with the trial
court’s determination to allow the testimony related to forensic genetic genealogy
in this matter. Therefore, Bortree’s sixth assignment of error is overruled.
-49- Case No. 8-20-67
Eighth Assignment of Error19
{¶97} In his eighth assignment of error, Bortree argues that there was
insufficient evidence presented at trial to convict him of attempted aggravated
murder.
{¶98} “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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio
St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Pountney, 152 Ohio St.3d
474, 2018-Ohio-22, ¶ 19 (an appellate court’s function in a sufficiency review is not
to determine if the evidence should be believed). Accordingly, “[t]he 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., following Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979); State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139, 2019-Ohio-4539,
¶ 317. “In deciding if the evidence was sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary
conflicts nor assess the credibility of witnesses, as both are functions reserved for
the trier of fact.” State v. Jones, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120570 and C-120571,
19 The seventh assignment of error will be addressed out of order, at the end of this opinion.
-50- Case No. 8-20-67
2013-Ohio-4775, ¶ 33, citing State v. Williams, 197 Ohio App.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-
6267, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.); see also State v. Berry, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-12-03, 2013-
Ohio-2380, ¶ 19, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997)
(“Sufficiency of the evidence is a test of adequacy rather than credibility or weight
of the evidence.”).
Controlling Statutes
{¶99} In this case, Bortree was convicted of attempted aggravated murder.
Criminal attempt is codified in R.C. 2923.02(A), and reads “(A) No person,
purposely or knowingly, and when purpose or knowledge is sufficient culpability
for the commission of an offense, shall engage in conduct that, if successful, would
constitute or result in the offense.”
{¶100} Aggravated murder, as charged in this case, is codified in R.C.
2903.01(B), and reads, in pertinent part, “No person shall purposely cause the death
of another * * * while committing or attempting to commit, or while fleeing
immediately after committing or attempting to commit, kidnapping, [or] rape * *
*[.]
{¶101} At trial in this matter, the state presented the testimony of Anita, who
detailed the events of July 30-31, 1993. She testified to being stopped on the way
to work by a truck, to being forced at gunpoint onto the floorboards of a red Ford
-51- Case No. 8-20-67
Lariat XLT with a license plate beginning with the letters “NM,” to being driven to
a secluded area, to being forced to take off her clothes, to having a man put his hands
and mouth on her, and to being forced to perform oral sex on the man until he
ejaculated in her mouth. She testified to wiping some of the ejaculate on her shirt,
to being driven around after the incident, and ultimately to being removed from the
truck and having her throat cut. Anita survived and provided as much detail as she
could to law enforcement and her clothes were collected as evidence. She worked
with a sketch artist to produce a sketch of her assailant.
{¶102} The state then produced the testimony of numerous witnesses who
were involved investigating both this case and the Sheila L. case. Sheila also
testified in this matter. DNA analysts and Amanda Reno from AdvanceDNA
provided testimony. Ultimately law enforcement detailed how Ralph Bortree was
determined to be the primary suspect, how his DNA was obtained both from the
cigarettes and later from a search warrant. The DNA was compared to the DNA left
on the shirt from 1993 and Bortree was found to be a match at a rate rarer than 1 in
1 trillion.
{¶103} While there was a significant amount of detailed testimony produced
over the course of the trial, the salient details were the kidnapping, rape, and
attempted murder of Anita on the night in question, and then the connection to
Bortree as the perpetrator through DNA. However, Bortree was further identified
-52- Case No. 8-20-67
through his ownership of the vehicles, and his proximity to living in the area.
Furthermore, photographs of Bortree from around the time of the crime looked
similar to the sketch that was completed with Anita’s assistance.
{¶104} Based on the testimony and the evidence presented, we do not find
that there was insufficient evidence presented to convict Bortree of attempted
aggravated murder. Bortree’s claim that Anita did not make an unequivocal
identification of Bortree at the trial and his claim that the semen could have been on
Anita’s shirt previously are matters for weight of the evidence, not sufficiency.
State v. Martinez, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-19-28, 2020-Ohio-4883, ¶ 26. Here there
was evidence presented on each and every element of the crime that a jury could
have found established Bortree’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). Therefore, Bortree’s eighth assignment
of error is overruled.
Ninth Assignment of Error
{¶105} In his ninth assignment of error, Bortree argues that even if there was
sufficient evidence presented to convict him of attempted aggravated murder, his
conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶106} 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
-53- Case No. 8-20-67
testimony. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 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.
{¶107} Nevertheless, a reviewing court must allow the trier-of-fact
appropriate discretion on matters relating to the credibility of the witnesses. State
v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). When 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, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-11-34, 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Hunter,
131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119.
{¶108} Bortree does not make any specific arguments in his brief as to how
his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Nevertheless, he
did argue in his sufficiency claim that the DNA on Anita’s shirt could have been
there long before July 30/31, 1993, and that there was no unequivocal eyewitness
identification of Bortree by Anita at trial. However, these are matters of credibility
for a jury to determine, and we will not second-guess a jury on these matters. State
-54- Case No. 8-20-67
v. Gribben, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-19-50, 2020-Ohio-3083, ¶ 30, citing State v.
DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967).
{¶109} Moreover, although Anita did not identify Bortree at trial the
evidence surrounding the incident firmly established Bortree as the perpetrator. The
evidence included the DNA, his ownership of a vehicle matching the description
with the appropriate “NM” beginning on the license plate, his height and stature, his
similarity to the sketch, his smoking of light cigarettes, his proximity to the crimes,
etc. Thus Bortree’s claim that Anita did not specifically identify him at trial is
largely irrelevant, particularly given the amount of time that had passed.20
{¶110} As to his claim that the DNA could have been on the shirt long before
the incident in question, there was no evidence of any relationship between Bortree
and Anita. In fact, Bortree told law enforcement officers searching his residence
that he did not know Anita. Moreover, the jury was presented with Anita’s
testimony and the surrounding investigation and the jury specifically found in the
additional findings on the jury verdict forms that a rape and kidnapping occurred in
this matter. Thus even if Bortree was somehow insinuating a consensual encounter,
the jury determined otherwise. Ultimately, the evidence supports the jury’s
conclusion, and we are bound to give the evidence the construction consistent with
20 At trial, Bortree used his cross-examination to target the fact that Anita had identified a man that was not Bortree in a photo lineup in the months after the incident occurred. That man was excluded as a possible suspect in her case. Notably, law enforcement testified that different photo lineup procedures are used now than in the past so as to prevent false identifications.
-55- Case No. 8-20-67
the jury’s determination.21 State v. Richcreek, 3d Dist. Paulding No. 11-20-03,
2021-Ohio-636, ¶ 34.
{¶111} In sum, the evidence supported Bortree’s conviction in this matter.
We cannot find that the jury clearly lost its way or that a manifest miscarriage of
justice was created. For all of these reasons, Bortree’s ninth assignment of error is
overruled.
Seventh Assignment of Error
{¶112} In his seventh assignment of error, Bortree argues that even if there
was no individual error that was prejudicial enough to deprive him of a fair trial, the
cumulative impact of the errors deprived him of his right to a fair trial.
{¶113} “Under [the] doctrine of cumulative error, a conviction will be
reversed when the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of a fair
trial even though each of the numerous instances of trial court error does not
individually constitute cause for reversal.” State v. Spencer, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-
13-50, 2015-Ohio-52, ¶ 83, citing State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233, 2012-Ohio-
2577, ¶¶ 222-224 and State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995). “To find
cumulative error, a court must first find multiple errors committed at trial and
21 Bortree seemed to try and create some doubt with the jury by pointing out that brothers share more DNA than regular unrelated individuals. However, Erika Jimenez testified that Bortree would have to have 300 billion siblings before she would expect one sibling to have the same DNA as him. (Nov. 4, 2020, Tr. at 520).
-56- Case No. 8-20-67
determine that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome below would have
been different but for the combination of the harmless errors.” State v. Stober, 3d
Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-13, 2014-Ohio-5629, ¶ 15, quoting In re J.M., 3d. Dist.
Putnam No. 12-11-06, 2012-Ohio-1467, ¶ 36.
{¶114} Because we have found no errors in this matter, let alone cumulative
errors, the doctrine of cumulative error does not apply here. State v. Carpenter, 3d
Dist. Seneca No. 13-18-16, 2019-Ohio-58, ¶ 104, citing State v. Bertuzzi, 3d Dist.
Marion No. 9-13-12, 2014-Ohio-5093, ¶ 110. For these reasons, Bortree’s seventh
Conclusion
{¶115} For the foregoing reasons Bortree’s assignments of error are
overruled and the judgment and sentence of the Logan County Common Pleas Court
is affirmed.
ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-57-
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2021 Ohio 2873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bortree-ohioctapp-2021.