[Cite as State v. Gilbert, 2026-Ohio-2655.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2025-11-111 Appellee, : OPINION AND vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 7/13/2026 ARLIE GILBERT, :
Appellant. :
:
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 25CR42706
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Timothy J. McKenna, for appellant.
____________ OPINION
SIEBERT, J.
{¶ 1} Arlie Gilbert appeals his conviction in the Warren County Court of Common
Pleas for one count of gross sexual imposition by force. Gilbert argues his conviction was
supported by insufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence Warren CA2025-11-111
because the State presented no physical evidence of Gilbert's guilt and the victim,
according to Gilbert, was not credible. Gilbert also asserts the trial court should have
sentenced him to community control and placed him in treatment because, among other
reasons, he believed prison made him a worse person. We overrule these assignments
of error. Ohio law is clear that no physical evidence, including DNA testing, is required to
support a conviction. Indeed, the testimony of a single witness, if believed, is enough. The
jury is in the best position to determine witness credibility. Moreover, Ohio statutes gave
the trial court discretion to impose prison time instead of community control, regardless
of the defendant's wishes.
Background
{¶ 2} Jane's1 Mother began dating Gilbert in September of 2024. One evening
approximately two months later in November 2024, Jane and Mother went to Gilbert's
home where they and Gilbert's own children ate dinner together. However, Mother later
left for a night shift at work, leaving Jane to stay with the Gilberts. Jane testified at trial
that while watching television with the Gilberts on a shared couch and under a shared
comforter, Gilbert shifted toward her, scratched his own leg and then hers before
proceeding to move his hand higher, gripping her thigh tightly. Gilbert then progressed to
her inner thigh before his hand began moving up and down Jane's vagina. Jane wore thin
sweatpants and underwear at the time. During this series of events, Jane testified that
she froze and felt anxious and scared. Jane believed she could not simply get up and
leave because she was staying the night and her phone was across the room charging.
{¶ 3} When Gilbert rose to put his children to bed, Jane retrieved her phone and
1. "Jane," is a pseudonym adopted for this opinion for the purposes of the purposes of privacy and readability. See State v. Cansler, 2025-Ohio-2558, ¶ 1, fn. 1 (12th Dist.), Supreme Court of Ohio Writing Manual 115 (3rd Ed. 2024). "Joe," used later in this opinion, is also a pseudonym. -2- Warren CA2025-11-111
contacted her friend Joe via Snapchat and by phone. Joe testified Jane was scared and
whispering while telling him what had happened. According to Joe, Jane reported that
Gilbert grabbed and squeezed her thigh, but she did not mention vaginal touching. Mother
and Jane also communicated via Snapchat that night, but Jane did not bring up the
incident because she wanted to speak with Mother in person. The next day, when Jane
told Mother what happened, Mother initially laughed the matter off and asked if was an
accident. After Jane explained the incident in more detail, Mother brought Gilbert into the
room to apologize. Jane testified that Gilbert told her he "didn't mean anything by it," and
Mother allowed him to stay the night. Several days later, Jane disclosed the incident to
her therapist (Jane has a documented history of depression and anxiety) who then
notified her parents and law enforcement. Jane also texted another friend about the
incident and later told that friend in person that Gilbert touched her vagina.
{¶ 4} A detective with the Warren County Sheriff’s Office later spoke with Jane
and determined the matter should be further investigated. The detective had concerns
that Mother remained with Gilbert and thus limited the information provided to Mother.
The detective also spoke with Gilbert. Gilbert described his and Jane's relationship as
"good or great." According to the detective, Gilbert and Jane talked regularly and even
said "I love you at the end of the night to each other." The detective testified that several
days after their initial conversation, Gilbert contacted the detective wanting an update on
the case and stated he had surveillance cameras in the house and footage to prove he
did not inappropriately touch Jane. However, the detective stated that when asked for the
footage, Gilbert would not provide it.
{¶ 5} According to the detective, no DNA testing was performed by law
enforcement due to the fragility of DNA evidence, particularly on clothing. In addition, law
enforcement did not collect DNA for a rape kit because the case did not involve
-3- Warren CA2025-11-111
penetration or other skin to skin contact.
{¶ 6} The defense called Mother as its sole witness. Mother remained with Gilbert
throughout the proceedings, and they had a child together approximately two weeks
before the trial. Mother asserted Jane exhibited jealousy about the relationship and
Gilbert's children as their families began to intermingle more. For example, when Mother
held the hand of one of Gilbert's children at a festival, Jane cried later that day and stated
she wanted to kill herself. At that point, Mother contacted Jane's therapist by phone for
an impromptu remote session. At trial, Jane acknowledged she cried and spoke with her
therapist that day. Jane asserted she was overstimulated with all of them attending the
festival. Mother also testified that Jane would ask if Mother and Gilbert would get married,
move in together, and have children. Despite all of this, Mother also stated Jane and
Gilbert "had a pretty good relationship" up until the night of the incident.
{¶ 7} Much of the jury trial focused on Jane's credibility. When asked if she
considered herself a "truthful person," Jane answered "Yes." However, Jane admitted to
lying to her parents in the past and that her truthfulness "depend[ed] on the topic." In
addition, Mother testified to seeing "a lot of changes" in Jane and asserted she "caught
[Jane] in a few lies" at times. Mother also testified that Jane's description of how Gilbert
touched her was "inconsistent," with Jane originally reporting touching of just the leg, then
her thigh, then her vagina. According to Mother "that was all in like [a] minute time span
where she kept kind of changing her story." Ultimately, Mother did not believe Jane.
{¶ 8} The jury found Gilbert guilty of gross sexual imposition. At sentencing, the
trial court imposed a sentence of 18 months in prison. Gilbert was classified a Tier I sex
offender and advised of five years mandatory postrelease control for felony sex offenses.
{¶ 9} Gilbert now appeals.
-4- Warren CA2025-11-111
First and Second Assignments of Error – Sufficiency and Manifest Weight of the Evidence2
{¶ 10} Gilbert argues his conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence and
against the manifest weight of the evidence. He bases these arguments largely on
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Gilbert, 2026-Ohio-2655.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2025-11-111 Appellee, : OPINION AND vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 7/13/2026 ARLIE GILBERT, :
Appellant. :
:
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 25CR42706
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Timothy J. McKenna, for appellant.
____________ OPINION
SIEBERT, J.
{¶ 1} Arlie Gilbert appeals his conviction in the Warren County Court of Common
Pleas for one count of gross sexual imposition by force. Gilbert argues his conviction was
supported by insufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence Warren CA2025-11-111
because the State presented no physical evidence of Gilbert's guilt and the victim,
according to Gilbert, was not credible. Gilbert also asserts the trial court should have
sentenced him to community control and placed him in treatment because, among other
reasons, he believed prison made him a worse person. We overrule these assignments
of error. Ohio law is clear that no physical evidence, including DNA testing, is required to
support a conviction. Indeed, the testimony of a single witness, if believed, is enough. The
jury is in the best position to determine witness credibility. Moreover, Ohio statutes gave
the trial court discretion to impose prison time instead of community control, regardless
of the defendant's wishes.
Background
{¶ 2} Jane's1 Mother began dating Gilbert in September of 2024. One evening
approximately two months later in November 2024, Jane and Mother went to Gilbert's
home where they and Gilbert's own children ate dinner together. However, Mother later
left for a night shift at work, leaving Jane to stay with the Gilberts. Jane testified at trial
that while watching television with the Gilberts on a shared couch and under a shared
comforter, Gilbert shifted toward her, scratched his own leg and then hers before
proceeding to move his hand higher, gripping her thigh tightly. Gilbert then progressed to
her inner thigh before his hand began moving up and down Jane's vagina. Jane wore thin
sweatpants and underwear at the time. During this series of events, Jane testified that
she froze and felt anxious and scared. Jane believed she could not simply get up and
leave because she was staying the night and her phone was across the room charging.
{¶ 3} When Gilbert rose to put his children to bed, Jane retrieved her phone and
1. "Jane," is a pseudonym adopted for this opinion for the purposes of the purposes of privacy and readability. See State v. Cansler, 2025-Ohio-2558, ¶ 1, fn. 1 (12th Dist.), Supreme Court of Ohio Writing Manual 115 (3rd Ed. 2024). "Joe," used later in this opinion, is also a pseudonym. -2- Warren CA2025-11-111
contacted her friend Joe via Snapchat and by phone. Joe testified Jane was scared and
whispering while telling him what had happened. According to Joe, Jane reported that
Gilbert grabbed and squeezed her thigh, but she did not mention vaginal touching. Mother
and Jane also communicated via Snapchat that night, but Jane did not bring up the
incident because she wanted to speak with Mother in person. The next day, when Jane
told Mother what happened, Mother initially laughed the matter off and asked if was an
accident. After Jane explained the incident in more detail, Mother brought Gilbert into the
room to apologize. Jane testified that Gilbert told her he "didn't mean anything by it," and
Mother allowed him to stay the night. Several days later, Jane disclosed the incident to
her therapist (Jane has a documented history of depression and anxiety) who then
notified her parents and law enforcement. Jane also texted another friend about the
incident and later told that friend in person that Gilbert touched her vagina.
{¶ 4} A detective with the Warren County Sheriff’s Office later spoke with Jane
and determined the matter should be further investigated. The detective had concerns
that Mother remained with Gilbert and thus limited the information provided to Mother.
The detective also spoke with Gilbert. Gilbert described his and Jane's relationship as
"good or great." According to the detective, Gilbert and Jane talked regularly and even
said "I love you at the end of the night to each other." The detective testified that several
days after their initial conversation, Gilbert contacted the detective wanting an update on
the case and stated he had surveillance cameras in the house and footage to prove he
did not inappropriately touch Jane. However, the detective stated that when asked for the
footage, Gilbert would not provide it.
{¶ 5} According to the detective, no DNA testing was performed by law
enforcement due to the fragility of DNA evidence, particularly on clothing. In addition, law
enforcement did not collect DNA for a rape kit because the case did not involve
-3- Warren CA2025-11-111
penetration or other skin to skin contact.
{¶ 6} The defense called Mother as its sole witness. Mother remained with Gilbert
throughout the proceedings, and they had a child together approximately two weeks
before the trial. Mother asserted Jane exhibited jealousy about the relationship and
Gilbert's children as their families began to intermingle more. For example, when Mother
held the hand of one of Gilbert's children at a festival, Jane cried later that day and stated
she wanted to kill herself. At that point, Mother contacted Jane's therapist by phone for
an impromptu remote session. At trial, Jane acknowledged she cried and spoke with her
therapist that day. Jane asserted she was overstimulated with all of them attending the
festival. Mother also testified that Jane would ask if Mother and Gilbert would get married,
move in together, and have children. Despite all of this, Mother also stated Jane and
Gilbert "had a pretty good relationship" up until the night of the incident.
{¶ 7} Much of the jury trial focused on Jane's credibility. When asked if she
considered herself a "truthful person," Jane answered "Yes." However, Jane admitted to
lying to her parents in the past and that her truthfulness "depend[ed] on the topic." In
addition, Mother testified to seeing "a lot of changes" in Jane and asserted she "caught
[Jane] in a few lies" at times. Mother also testified that Jane's description of how Gilbert
touched her was "inconsistent," with Jane originally reporting touching of just the leg, then
her thigh, then her vagina. According to Mother "that was all in like [a] minute time span
where she kept kind of changing her story." Ultimately, Mother did not believe Jane.
{¶ 8} The jury found Gilbert guilty of gross sexual imposition. At sentencing, the
trial court imposed a sentence of 18 months in prison. Gilbert was classified a Tier I sex
offender and advised of five years mandatory postrelease control for felony sex offenses.
{¶ 9} Gilbert now appeals.
-4- Warren CA2025-11-111
First and Second Assignments of Error – Sufficiency and Manifest Weight of the Evidence2
{¶ 10} Gilbert argues his conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence and
against the manifest weight of the evidence. He bases these arguments largely on
grounds that Jane's testimony alone was insufficient and that she was not a credible
witness. We disagree.
Applicable Law
{¶ 11} Ohio law states, "No person shall have sexual contact with another . . .
[when] [t]he offender purposely compels the other person . . . to submit by force or threat
of force." R.C. 2907.05(A)(1). "Sexual Contact" is defined as "any touching of an
erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic
region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or
gratifying either person." R.C. 2907.01(B). A person acts purposely when it is the person's
specific intention to cause a certain result . . . regardless of what the offender intends to
accomplish thereby, it is the offender's specific intention to engage in conduct of that
nature." R.C. 2901.22(A). Importantly, "A victim need not prove physical resistance" for a
defendant to be guilty. R.C. 2907.05(D).
Standard of Review
{¶ 12} "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a conviction, an
appellate court examines the evidence to determine whether such evidence, if believed,
would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
2. The second assignment of error listed in the table of contents and in the body of Gilbert's brief are unrelated to his actual convictions or his appeal (murder and felonious assault as opposed to gross sexual imposition). This violates Loc.R. 11(B)(3). Wightman v. Darty, 2023-Ohio-3748, ¶ 12, fn. 3 (12th Dist.). However, the substance of the assigned error does accurately reflect the proper legal standards for a manifest weight of the evidence argument and also applies the facts of Gilbert's case to those standards. We assume that Gilbert's actual assignment of error is the one found in the body of the brief. State v. Runion, 2022-Ohio-2461, ¶ 6, fn. 1 (12th Dist.). -5- Warren CA2025-11-111
State v. Madden, 2024-Ohio-2851, ¶ 31 (12th Dist.). Therefore, "[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, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the
syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in
State v. Smith, 1997-Ohio-355, ¶ 49, fn. 4.
{¶ 13} "A manifest weight of the evidence challenge examines the 'inclination of
the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue
rather than the other.'" Madden at ¶ 32, quoting State v. Barnett, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14
(12th Dist.). To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, the reviewing court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether
in resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact 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. Graham, 2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 14} In reviewing the evidence, an appellate court must be mindful that the
original trier of fact was in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and
determine the weight to be given to the evidence. State v. Blankenburg, 2012-Ohio-1289,
¶ 114 (12th Dist.). An appellate court will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight
of the evidence only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against
the conviction. State v. Zitney, 2021-Ohio-466, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 15} "[A]lthough the legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of
the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different, '[a] determination that a
conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of
the issue of sufficiency.'" State v. Billingsley, 2020-Ohio-2673, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.), quoting
-6- Warren CA2025-11-111
State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.).
Analysis
{¶ 16} Gilbert argues his conviction was supported by insufficient evidence of any
sexual contact because "there was no physical evidence of touching of [Jane's] private
area," and Jane only told Joe—whom she texted and spoke with immediately after the
incident—that Gilbert grabbed her thigh and did not mention her vagina.
{¶ 17} Gilbert's argument ignores the fundamental truism in criminal law that the
testimony of a single witness can support a conviction if that testimony is believed. State
v. Cansler, 2025-Ohio-2558, ¶ 22 (12th Dist.). As a result, "[p]hysical evidence, like DNA
or fingerprints, is not required to sustain a conviction." Id. Here, the State presented
largely testimonial evidence to prove that gross sexual imposition occurred. Such
testimony, even Jane's testimony standing alone without corroborating DNA evidence,
was enough to convict Gilbert if the jury believed her (which it did).
{¶ 18} This notion leads to Gilbert's second assignment of error. Gilbert also
asserts his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because Jane was
not a credible witness. Gilbert claims "[i]t is not unreasonable after reviewing the record
to conclude that [Jane] had a fear of being replaced by a new family, and in reaction to
that, her behaviors first escalated to lying, then to acting out at a festival and crying . . .
then to threatening suicide at the festival, then to making these accusations."
{¶ 19} But this court firmly holds that, "a manifest weight of the evidence analysis
does not represent an opportunity to merely relitigate witness credibility issues." State v.
Montgomery, 2025-Ohio784, ¶ 33 (12th Dist.). The jury was in the best position to
evaluate what (if any) impact Jane's admitted depression and anxiety, her statement that
her truthfulness "depend[ed] on the topic," the varying level of detail in her recounting of
events to other witnesses, and the dynamics within her family had on her credibility.
-7- Warren CA2025-11-111
Gilbert is correct that the jury could have looked at factors such as these and determined
Jane made up her accusations in a fit of jealousy. But these factors did not preclude the
jury from believing that Gilbert did in fact commit gross sexual imposition by force.
Ultimately, Gilbert does not give us "any justifiable reason to second-guess the credibility
determinations" of the jury, and his "conviction is not against the manifest weight of the
evidence simply because the trier of fact believed the testimony and evidence presented
by the [S]tate." State v. Nelson, 2024-Ohio-5750, ¶ 23 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 20} We overrule Gilbert's first two assignments of error.
Third Assignment of Error – Community Control Versus Prison Term
Applicable Law and Standard of Review
{¶ 21} As applicable in this case, Ohio law gives a trial court discretion to impose
a prison sentence on defendants convicted of a fourth- or fifth-degree, non-violent felony
if (1) the offense was a sex offense, or (2) the defendant previously served a prison term.
R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(iv), (ix). Gilbert's conviction is a felony of the fourth degree. R.C.
2907.05(C)(1). To prevail on an appeal related to improper sentencing, an appellant must
present clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is not supported by the record
or is "otherwise contrary to law." R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
{¶ 22} In his final assignment of error, Gilbert argues the trial court erred in
sentencing him to a prison term because the trial court did not consider Gilbert's
adherence to the terms of his bond prior to trial, stated desire to undergo treatment, and
assertion that his prior time in prison made him a "worse person." Put simply, none of this
speaks as to why his sentence is not supported by the record or contrary to the law. The
jury found Gilbert guilty of a fourth-degree felony sex offense, and Gilbert acknowledges
having served time in prison previously. As a result, R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b) gave the trial
-8- Warren CA2025-11-111
court discretion to impose a prison term. Gilbert's preference for community control and
treatment for a crime he asserts he did not commit does not overcome the discretion
granted to the trial court to impose a prison term. We overrule Gilbert's final assignment
of error.
{¶ 23} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
-9- Warren CA2025-11-111
JUDGMENT ENTRY
The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Warren County Court of Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.
/s/ Robert A. Hendrickson, Presiding Judge
/s/ Robin N. Piper, Judge
/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge
- 10 -