[Cite as State v. Dorsey, 2012-Ohio-611.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- Case No. 11 CA 39 RICHARD DORSEY
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 06 CR 763
JUDGMENT: Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 17, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
KENNETH W. OSWALT ROBERT D. ESSEX PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 604 East Rich Street 20 South Second Street, Fourth Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Newark, Ohio 43055 Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant Richard Dorsey appeals from his felony convictions for rape and
gross sexual imposition in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the
State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
{¶2} On February 25, 2006, a Pataskala police officer responded to an
allegation of sexual assault reported by Pamela Parker on behalf of her mother, Bonnie
Parker, age seventy-nine at the time. Prior to February 2006, Bonnie had lived
independently; Bertha Dorsey, her daughter, and appellant, Bertha's husband, helped
provide her with needed care and assistance, including delivery of prescription
medicine and meals.
{¶3} The report was turned over to Pataskala Detective Andy Waugh for
investigation. After the detective interviewed Bonnie Parker, she was taken to Grant
Hospital in Columbus for a forensic rape examination. In the meantime, detectives
collected evidence from her apartment.
{¶4} After additional police investigation, the Licking County grand jury returned
an indictment in December 2006 charging appellant with three identically-worded
counts of rape and three identically-worded counts of gross sexual imposition (“GSI”).
Each count identified Bonnie Parker as the alleged victim and averred that the offense
occurred “between the dates of February 2005 through February 22, 2006.” Each count
alleged that each offense was committed by force or threat of force “and/or” while
Bonnie’s ability to consent to, or resist, sexual relations was substantially impaired due
to her mental or physical condition, or advanced age. Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 3
{¶5} The case first went to trial on June 14, 2007. Bonnie Parker did not testify
in the jury trial. The parties agreed before trial that she was incompetent to testify.
{¶6} At the conclusion of the State's case, the trial court directed an acquittal
on two of the rape counts. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on the remaining counts,
and rendered special findings stating that the State had failed to prove that appellant
compelled his mother-in-law to submit to sexual conduct or sexual contact by force or
threat of force. The court thereafter sentenced appellant to a maximum ten-year prison
term on the rape conviction and concurrent one-year prison terms on the GSI
convictions.
{¶7} Appellant thereupon filed a notice of appeal to this Court. He therein
raised a number of issues, including sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight of the
evidence, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. However, on May 23, 2008, this
Court affirmed appellant’s convictions and sentence. See State v. Dorsey, Licking
App.No. 2007-CA-091, 2008-Ohio-2515 (“Dorsey I”).
{¶8} The Ohio Supreme Court refused to accept appellant’s subsequent
appeal. See State v. Dorsey, 119 Ohio St.3d 1487, 2008-Ohio-5273.
{¶9} Appellant thereafter filed a federal habeas corpus action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The federal court determined that
as a result of a faulty jury instruction, appellant's case should be remanded to the
Licking County Common Pleas Court for a new trial. See Dorsey v. Banks (S.D. Ohio
2010), 749 F.Supp.2d 715
{¶10} The second jury trial commenced on January 24, 2011, as further
analyzed infra. The State again relied on Bonnie’s forensic interview at the hospital as Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 4
part of its evidence of a specific incident of sexual intercourse between her and the
appellant.
{¶11} The jury ultimately returned guilty verdicts on the Rape and GSI counts.
Appellant was again sentenced to a total of ten years of incarceration. In addition, over
trial counsel's objection, appellant was labeled a Tier Ill sex offender.
{¶12} On March 29, 2011, appellant filed a notice of appeal. He herein raises the
following five Assignments of Error:
{¶13} “I. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT'S RIGHT OF
CONFRONTATION AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND COMPARABLE
PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BY IMPROPERLY ADMITTING
HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM.
{¶14} “II. THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BARRED THE
ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF FORCE WHEN APPELLANT HAD
BEEN PREVIOUSLY BEEN (SIC) ACQUITTED OF THAT CONDUCT. ADMISSION
OF THIS EVIDENCE AND FAILURE TO GIVE A LIMITING INSTRUCTION
CONSTITUTED DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND VIOLATED APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION AS WELL (SIC) THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶15} “III. THE ADMISSION OF OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE VIOLATED
APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS. IN ADDITION, THE
TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE PROPER Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 5
LIMITATIONS OF OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE THEREBY VIOLATING APPELLANT'S
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS.
{¶16} “IV. APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE.
{¶17} “V. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE
BILL 10 TO APPELLANT VIOLATES THE BAN ON RETROACTIVE LAWS SET
FORTH IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 28 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AS DECIDED
IN STATE V. WILLIAMS, SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-3374 AND THE BAN ON EX
POST FACTO LAWS CONTAINED (SIC) THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.”
I.
{¶18} In his First Assignment of Error, appellant argues the trial court violated
his constitutional right to confrontation by allowing the introduction at trial of out-of-
court statements by the victim.1 We disagree.
{¶19} “[Q]uestions of the scope and effect of constitutional protections, such as
the Sixth Amendment, are matters of law and therefore reviewed de novo.” State v.
Dunivant, Stark App.No. 2003CA00175, 2005-Ohio-1497, ¶ 7, citing United States v.
Wilmore (C.A.9, 2004), 381 F.3d 868, 871.
{¶20} In Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158
L.Ed.2d 177, the United States Supreme Court held that under the Confrontation
Clause, “testimonial” statements of a witness who does not appear at trial may not be
1 Appellant herein has limited his assigned error to issues of right to confrontation. We therefore need not address the issue of hearsay evidence per se. Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 6
admitted or used against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable to
testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
{¶21} About two years after Crawford was decided, the Ohio Supreme Court, in
State v. Stahl, 111 Ohio St.3d 186, 2006-Ohio-5482, considered whether an adult rape
victim had made testimonial statements to a nurse practitioner during a medical
examination at a hospital “DOVE” unit specializing in health care for victims of rape.
Regarding statements made to a medical professional, the Court adopted the
objective-witness test from Crawford: “For Confrontation Clause purposes, a
testimonial statement includes one made ‘under circumstances which would lead an
objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at
a later trial.’ ” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus, quoting Crawford at 52. The Court
also held: “In determining whether a statement is testimonial for Confrontation Clause
purposes, courts should focus on the expectation of the declarant at the time of making
the statement; the intent of a questioner is relevant only if it could affect a reasonable
declarant's expectations.” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶22} Appellant herein further directs us to State v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290,
2010-Ohio-2742, wherein the Ohio Supreme Court held: “Statements made to
interviewers at child-advocacy centers that serve primarily a forensic or investigative
purpose are testimonial and are inadmissible pursuant to the Confrontation Clause
when the declarant is unavailable for cross-examination. *** Statements made to
interviewers at child-advocacy centers that are made for medical diagnosis and
treatment are nontestimonial and are admissible without offending the Confrontation
Clause.” Id. at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 7
{¶23} The Court in Arnold thus reaffirmed the “primary-purpose test” set forth in
State v. Siler, 116 Ohio St.3d 39, 876 N.E.2d 534, 2007-Ohio-5637, which addressed,
in light of Crawford, a child declarant's statements made in the course of a police
interrogation.2
{¶24} In the case sub judice, it is undisputed that Bonnie Parker was
incompetent at the time of the first trial and was not able to testify. By the time of the
second trial, she had passed away. Appellant specifically contends that Bonnie’s
statement to Kailey Mahan, a forensic nurse and coordinator of the sexual assault
nurse examiner (“S.A.N.E.”) program, identifying appellant as her assailant is
testimonial in nature under Crawford and is inadmissible pursuant to the Sixth
Amendment. In particular, appellant challenges the following statements made by
Bonnie to Nurse Mahan as part of a sexual assault evaluation, which Mahan repeated
at trial:
{¶25} "He [Appellant] grabbed me[,] hugged me and grabbed my boob and my
pussy. He got on top of me and put his dick in my pussy and I fought him. He's been
doing it to me for a while. If I’m not at home he does it to Pam." Tr. at 185.
{¶26} At the point in time Bonnie made these statements to Nurse Mahan, she
had already identified appellant as her assailant to the police. Mahan stated there is
usually a victim's advocate present during the examination. Tr. at 170-172. She also
stated that she completed a Sexual Assault Forensic Exam form. Tr. at 173. As part of
2 This may create the question of what test to apply now (“primary purpose” versus “objective witness”) if the questioner of the declarant is not a law enforcement officer or agent thereof, but is acting in somewhat of a dual role of medical professional and investigator. However, we find this distinction, in light of Arnold, does not affect our decision under the circumstances of the case sub judice. Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 8
the exam, she collected biographical information, medical history and information
related to the assault. Mahan also noted that the consent form Bonnie signed
authorized her to provide any evidence, photographs, records, and other information to
Licking County law enforcement officials or the Prosecutor's Office for criminal
investigation and prosecution. Tr. at 196.
{¶27} Upon review, we find that Bonnie’s statements, in toto, describing forms of
sexual activity that would cause a medical professional to be concerned about the
possibility of injuries and sexually transmitted diseases, are primarily statements for
medical diagnosis and treatment. See, e.g., Arnold at ¶39. We further find Bonnie's
objective motivation in making these statements under the circumstances was to assist
her medical providers.
{¶28} Accordingly, upon review, we hold Bonnie Parker's statements (Tr. at 185)
to Nurse Mahan were not testimonial and were properly admitted into evidence by the
trial court pursuant to the rule of law set forth in Crawford.
{¶29} Appellant's First Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
II.
{¶30} In his Second Assignment of Error appellant argues the trial court’s
allowance of “use of force” evidence violated the doctrine of collateral estoppel and
denied him of his constitutional right to a fair trial and due process of law. We disagree.
{¶31} The doctrine of collateral estoppel “holds that a fact or a point that was
actually and directly at issue in a previous action, and was passed upon and
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, may not be drawn into question in a
subsequent action between the same parties or their privies, whether the cause of Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 9
action in the two actions be identical or different.” Pisani v. Pisani, Cuyahoga App.No.
78744, 2001 WL 280076, citing Teachers Assn. v. SERB (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 392,
395, 692 N.E.2d 140 (additional citations omitted).
{¶32} The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution incorporates the doctrine of collateral estoppel in criminal proceedings.
See Schiro v. Farley (1994), 510 U.S. 222, 232; Ashe v. Swenson (1970), 397 U.S.
436, 445.
{¶33} Appellant notes that he was originally charged with Rape in violation of
O.R.C. 2907.02 and Gross Sexual Imposition in violation of O.R.C. 2907.05. The
original verdict forms contained specific findings on the issue of force. In the first trial,
the jury found that appellant did not use force or threat of force to facilitate the rape or
the gross sexual impositions.
{¶34} Nonetheless, in the present case, the trial court arguably permitted
evidence regarding the use of force in the form of the testimony of S.A.N.E. Nurse
Mahan testimony regarding bruising and tearing and that Bonnie had stated she fought
appellant during the incident in question. Additionally, appellant maintains, evidence of
the other two rape charges for which appellant was formerly acquitted was introduced
when Nurse Mahan testified that Bonnie Parker told her appellant had been "doing it to
me for awhile" (Tr. at 185) as well as appellant's testimony from the previous trial of
other sexual acts with Bonnie. Appellant contends this evidence was violative of the
doctrine of collateral estoppel.
{¶35} However, we note the original charges against appellant included
allegations of rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and gross sexual imposition under R.C. Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 10
2907.05(A)(1), which contain the “force or threat of force” element, as well as
allegations of rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) and gross sexual imposition under
R.C. 2907.05(A)(5), which contain the requirement for the State to prove that the
victim’s “ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or
physical condition or because of advanced age.” The rape count utilized “and/or”
language within the original indictment, as did the gross sexual imposition count.
{¶36} As the State properly observes in its brief, while appellant is correct in
observing that the jury in his initial trial, via completion of a special finding, acquitted
him of the allegations that he purposely compelled Bonnie to submit to the sexual acts
"by force, or threat of force" (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and R.C. 2907.05(A)(1)), he was
never acquitted of engaging in sexual conduct/contact with Bonnie while "knowing or
having reasonable cause to believe that her ability to resist or consent was
substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of
advanced age” (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) and R.C. 2907.05(A)(5)). As such, appellant’s
claim of a double jeopardy violation based on collateral estoppel cannot stand under
the circumstances of this case, where the jury in his second trial convicted him only
under the “non-force” sections under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) and R.C. 2907.05(A)(5).
{¶37} Furthermore, it stands to reason that if a victim is injured in an unwanted
sexual act, it may be because the victim attempted to resist, but was unable to do so
successfully due to substantial impairment based on her condition or older age. In
addition, the presence of injuries upon a medical examination of the victim may be
relevant to the timing of the sexual assault. These are factors which a jury should be
able to consider, even though the rape allegations are not based on “force or threat of Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 11
force.” For example, in State v. Lopez, Cuyahoga App. No. 94312, 2011-Ohio-182, the
Eighth District Court of Appeals, in analyzing a “sufficiency of the evidence” argument
by a defendant who had been acquitted of rape "by force" and only convicted of the
rape of a victim whose ability to resist or consent was "substantially impaired,” factored
into its analysis the presence of injuries to the victim. Id. at ¶ 62. As we recognized in
Dorsey I, “[a] finding that [the defendant] did not use force does not equate with a
finding that the victim had the ability to consent or to resist.” Id. at ¶ 47.
{¶38} We therefore find no double jeopardy or due process violation in the
proceedings below as urged by appellant. The Second Assignment of Error is
overruled.
III.
{¶39} In his Third Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court’s
allowance of “other acts” evidence violated his constitutional rights to a fair trial and
due process of law. We disagree.
{¶40} The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests in the sound
discretion of the trial court. State v. Sage (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 180, 510 N.E.2d
343. As a general rule, all relevant evidence is admissible. Evid.R. 402; cf. Evid.R. 802.
Our task is to look at the totality of the circumstances in the case sub judice, and
determine whether the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or unconscionably in
allowing or excluding the disputed evidence. State v. Oman (Feb. 14, 2000), Stark
App.No.1999CA00027, at 2.
{¶41} Evid.R. 404(A) provides, with certain exceptions, that evidence of a
person's character is not admissible to prove the person acted in conformity with that Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 12
character. Evid.R. 404(B) sets forth an exception to the general rule against admitting
evidence of a person's other bad acts. Said rule states as follows: “Evidence of other
crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to
show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other
purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Finally, Evid.R. 403(B) grants a court
discretion to limit questioning if the “probative value is substantially outweighed by
considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
{¶42} The three portions of testimony specifically challenged by appellant are (1)
Nurse Mahan’s recollection that Bonnie told her that appellant “does it to Pam
[appellant’s sister-in-law],” (2) Pamela Parker’s own testimony that appellant had
exposed his genitals to her, and (3) Detective Waugh’s testimony that he found a
semen stain on a chair in the living room.
{¶43} Certainly, the State may not “parade past the jury a litany of potentially
prejudicial similar acts that have been established or connected to the defendant only
by unsubstantiated innuendo.” Huddleston v. United States (1988), 485 U.S. 681, 689,
108 S.Ct. 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771. Likewise, a prior act which is “ * * * too distant in time
or too removed in method or type has no permissible probative value. * * *” State v.
Snowden (1976), 49 Ohio App.2d 7, 10, 359 N.E.2d 87, 91.
{¶44} However, in the case sub judice, we find the allowance of challenged
testimony was within the trial court’s discretion as proof, at least, of motive, intent,
and/or absence of mistake. Appellant herein never denied having sexual contact and
intercourse with his elderly mother-in-law; he rather advanced the defense theory that Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 13
the acts were consensual. Evidence that he had attempted other sexually-oriented
actions targeting another member of his wife’s family, i.e., his sister-in-law Pamela,
was permissible to enable the jury to consider whether his actions were part of a larger
plan to engage in unwanted sexual advances toward his female in-laws. Furthermore,
the trial court instructed the jury that they could not consider the evidence at issue to
prove the character of appellant. See Tr. at 568. It is well-established that juries are
presumed to follow and obey the limiting instructions given them by the trial court.
State v. DeMastry, 155 Ohio App.3d 110, 127, 799 N.E.2d 229, 2003-Ohio-5588, ¶ 84,
citing State v. Franklin (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 127, 580 N.E.2d 1.
{¶45} Finally, regarding the detective’s testimony regarding a semen stain in the
living room, we find such evidence merely went to the general description of the crime
scene and the inference that appellant had at some point ejaculated in that room, and
any error in that regard must be considered harmless under Crim.R. 52(A), which
states that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial
rights shall be disregarded.”
{¶46} Upon review, we are unable to find that the challenged “other acts”
testimony constituted an abuse of discretion or deprived appellant of his right to a fair
trial.
{¶47} Appellant's Third Assignment of Error is overruled.
IV.
{¶48} In his Fourth Assignment of Error, appellant contends his convictions were
not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the
evidence. We disagree. Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 14
{¶49} In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, “[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.” State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d
492, paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶50} Our standard of review on a manifest weight challenge to a criminal
conviction is stated as follows: “The court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and
determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way
and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed
and a new trial ordered .” State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d
717. See also, State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541. The
granting of a new trial “should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the
evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Martin at 175, 485 N.E.2d 717.
{¶51} In the case sub judice, appellant was convicted under Count I of rape. The
pertinent statute states as follows:
{¶52} “R.C. 2907.02 (A)(1): No person shall engage in sexual conduct with
another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but
is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies:
{¶53} “ * * *
{¶54} “(c) The other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired
because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the
offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 15
resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or
because of advanced age.”
{¶55} Appellant was also found guilty of gross sexual imposition, in violation of
R.C. 2907.05, which states:
{¶56} “(A) No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the spouse of
the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual contact
with the offender; or cause two or more other persons to have sexual contact when any
of the following applies:
{¶57} “ * * *
{¶58} “(5) The ability of the other person to resist or consent or the ability of one
of the other persons to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental
or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has
reasonable cause to believe that the ability to resist or consent of the other person or of
one of the other persons is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical
condition or because of advanced age.”
{¶59} We note that “ ‘[s]ubstantial impairment’ need not be proven by expert
medical testimony; it may be proven by the testimony of persons who have had some
interaction with the victim and by permitting the trier of fact to obtain its own
assessment of the victim's ability to either appraise or control her conduct.” State v.
Brady, Cuyahoga App.No. 87854, 2007-Ohio-1453, ¶ 78.
{¶60} The first State's witness was Dr. Ronald Vargo, who was Bonnie Parker's
physician for approximately 15 years from 1993-2007. Dr. Vargo testified that Ms.
Parker had type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol and a history of Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 16
hypertension. He stated that over time, these conditions progressed, and he diagnosed
Bonnie with dementia in 2003. Tr. 130-131. Over the objection of defense counsel, Dr.
Vargo testified that someone in Bonnie’s condition could not consent to sexual activity.
Tr. at 148-151. On cross examination, he stated that the stages of dementia are
sometimes referred to mild, moderate, or severe, but he opined that such classification
was arbitrary. Tr. at 151-153. In the context of a person's ability to consent to sexual
activity, he also testified that it would be difficult for a medical doctor or a layperson to
determine when a person with dementia has crossed over from "changes in anatomy to
really affecting cognition." Tr. at 154. He stated that there are numerous mental status
exams available but that he did not administer any of them. Tr. at 156-158. He stated
that a CT scan had been done in 2006, but it did not indicated any infarcts (blocking off
of blood supply in the brain), or any acute intracranial abnormalities. Tr. 161-162.
{¶61} The next witness for the State was Kailey Mahan, who, as previously
noted, was working at Grant Hospital as an ER and SANE nurse. She testified that the
purpose of her forensic exam of Bonnie was both medical and legal. In addition to
recounting what Bonnie told Mahan during the exam about appellant’s sexual conduct
and contact with her (see Assignment of Error I, supra), she testified to the results of a
physical examination that revealed a bruise on Bonnie’s thigh, a tear to the center of
the labia majora, and bruising on the vaginal wall. Tr. at 187. She opined that the
injuries were consistent with the history reported to her. Tr. at 191.
{¶62} Ms. Mahan testified that she never would have let Bonnie sign the sexual
assault examination documents if she felt Bonnie didn't understand what she was
signing. Tr. at 198. She stated that Bonnie appeared to be able to do things for herself Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 17
like brushing her teeth and using mouthwash and was able to provide all of her
demographic information including her full social security number. Tr. at 210.
{¶63} The next State's witness was BCI forensic scientist Amy Wanken. She
testified that she analyzed a semen stain from a chair and that appellant could not be
ruled out as a contributor. The frequency of the profile reappearing in the general
population would be 1 in 941,600,000,000,000,000 individuals. Tr. at 249-250.
{¶64} The next State's witness was Pataskala Police Department Detective
Andy Waugh. Detective Waugh was dispatched to the residence in Pataskala and
spoke with Pam Parker and Bonnie Parker. As a result of his interviews, he processed
the scene for evidence. Tr. at 272. As part of his investigation, he swabbed a chair for
the presence of bodily fluids or semen. Tr. at 276. He also interviewed appellant as
part of his investigation. He noted appellant had denied that there would be any
reason his semen-based DNA would be in Bonnie’s apartment. Tr. at 285.
{¶65} On cross examination, the detective stated that he had Bonnie sign a
consent-to-search form for her apartment and that he felt confident that she understood
what she was doing and that she had a right to refuse. Tr. at 297. He also recalled that
Bonnie, in conversing with him, relayed information in a "normal and consistent"
fashion. Tr. at 300.
{¶66} The next State's witness was Pamela Parker, Bonnie’s daughter and
appellant’s sister-in-law. She testified that in 2005, her mother had Alzheimer's and
needed assistance that she couldn't provide. Tr. at 308-309. Pamela described Bonnie
as often acting like “a kid,” even needing help picking out her clothes. Tr. at 308, 334.
Over the objection of appellant, Pamela testified that in February 2006, appellant Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 18
exposed himself to her at her apartment. Tr. at 315-323. Pamela stated that her mother
was not involved in that situation. Tr. at 327.
{¶67} The next State's witness was Jackie Duffy. In April of 2006, Duffy started
providing home health aide services for Bonnie Parker. Tr. at 346-347. Jackie
summarized that Bonnie essentially needed help “with everything.” Tr. at 349-350. The
final State’s witness was Mary Bailey, who initially called the police and was present for
the interviews and was at the hospital when the examination was performed on Bonnie.
Tr. at 359-361.
{¶68} The parties stipulated as exhibits parts of a transcript of former home
health aide Carol Moulder's prior testimony and all of the appellant's prior testimony
subject to previously made objections. See Tr. at 379-381; State’s Exhibit 10. In
appellant's prior trial testimony, he had acknowledged knowing that Bonnie had
dementia and said he had engaged in several consensual sexual encounters with her.
He also admitted to masturbating in Bonnie’s apartment. See State’s Exhibit 11.
{¶69} The defense then called Dr. Christopher Demas. Dr. Demas operated a
family practice in Westerville, Ohio, and had experience in geriatrics as well. Dr.
Demas testified that he reviewed the sexual assault forensic exam form, Dr. Vargo's
records for Bonnie, and the testimony of Nurse Mahan and Dr. Vargo. Tr. 427-428.
{¶70} As part of his review of records, he reviewed the CT scan report of Bonnie
from April 10, 2006. He testified that after his review of the records, there was not any
objective evidence to support a diagnosis of "multi-infarct dementia." Tr. 431. He
testified that based on his review, Bonnie did have the ability to appraise and control
her conduct. He also described the physical findings of the physical examination as Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 19
non-specific, meaning it could come from many things. Tr. 439-440. He also testified
that according to the death certificate, the causes of death were respiratory failure,
cardiac failure, electrolyte imbalance and finally senile dementia. He stated that
according to the death certificate, the probable onset of senile dementia was
approximately November of 2008. Tr. 442-443.
{¶71} Nonetheless, despite the defense expert testimony, viewing all of the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a reasonable
person could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the State had met the
elements of the crimes of rape and gross sexual imposition as previously set forth,
particularly the requirement of showing that Bonnie’s ability to resist or consent was
substantially impaired.
{¶72} In regard to manifest weight of the evidence, we emphasize that “[w]hile
the jury may take note of the inconsistencies and resolve or discount them accordingly
* * * such inconsistencies do not render defendant's conviction against the manifest
weight *** .” State v. Craig (Mar. 23, 2000), Franklin App. No. 99AP-739, citing State v.
Nivens (May 28, 1996), Franklin App. No. 95APA09-1236. We recognize that an array
of evidence, both from the prosecution and the defense, was presented to the jury on
the critical issue of whether or not Bonnie was actually able to resist appellant’s
advances due to her age and level of dementia. However, upon review, we hold the
jurors in this case, in resolving any conflicts in the evidence, did not create a manifest
injustice requiring a new trial.
{¶73} Appellant's Fourth Assignment of Error is overruled.
V. Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 20
{¶74} In his Fifth Assignment of Error, appellant argues that he was erroneously
designated a Tier III sexual offender. We agree.
{¶75} Appellant directs us to State v. Williams, __ Ohio St.3d ___, 2011-Ohio-
3374, wherein the Ohio Supreme Court, following its decision concerning the
constitutionality of sexual offender reclassification in State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St. 3d
266, 2010-Ohio-2424, determined that the current version of O.R.C. 2950, otherwise
known as S.B.10, as applied to defendants who committed sex offenses prior to its
enactment, violates the prohibition against retroactive laws under Section 28, Article II
of the Ohio Constitution.
{¶76} In this case, appellant's offenses occurred prior to the January 1, 2008,
effective date of S.B. 10. The State concedes herein that Williams, which postdated the
judgment and sentence of appellant, mandates reversal. The matter will therefore be
remanded for a sex offender classification hearing in accordance with the pre-S.B. 10
classification scheme.
{¶77} Appellant's Fifth Assignment of Error is sustained. Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 21
{¶78} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas, Ohio, is affirmed in part and reversed in part, with directions to
conduct a classification hearing in accordance with law.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Delaney, J., concur.
___________________________________
JUDGES
JWW/d 0206 Licking County, Case No. 11 CA 39 22
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : RICHARD DORSEY : : Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 11 CA 39
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio, is affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Costs to be split evenly between the parties.