State v. Morries, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2004)

2004 Ohio 1610
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 31, 2004
DocketC.A. No. 03CA008290.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2004 Ohio 1610 (State v. Morries, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2004)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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.

Bluebook
State v. Morries, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2004), 2004 Ohio 1610 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
{¶ 1} Appellant, Sonny James Morries, appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of rape, and sentencing him to four years in prison. We affirm.

I.
{¶ 2} Appellant and the victim in this case, Angela Azzarello ("Azzarello"), met at a gas station in July 2002. Over the next few weeks, Appellant and Azzarello engaged in consensual sexual relations at Azzarello's apartment two or three times. On August 20, 2002, Appellant visited Azzarello's apartment. The two spent some time together alone in Azzarello's bedroom engaged in sexual conduct. Azzarello insists that it was not consensual. She was having problems with cervicitis and abnormal vaginal bleeding and pain that day, and claimed that Appellant threatened to hit her if she did not comply with his requests. Appellant claimed that he and Azzarello engaged in consensual sexual conduct.

{¶ 3} On November 5, 2002, the Wayne County Grand Jury indicted Appellant with one count of rape in violation of R.C.2907.02(A)(2). Following a trial, a jury found Appellant guilty of the rape charge. The court sentenced Appellant to four years in prison. Appellant timely appealed, but this Court dismissed the appeal due to Appellant's failure to pay the required deposit or request a waiver of deposit under Loc.R. 2(C). Appellant then filed a motion to reconsider, and this Court re-opened the appeal. Appellant raises one assignment of error.

II.
Assignment of Error
"The finding that [appellant] was guilty of rape, a violationof [R.C.] 2907.02 was against the manifest weight of the evidenceand contrary to law."

{¶ 4} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant argues that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, Appellant alleges that the evidence indicated that the sexual encounter between him and Azzarello was consensual. We disagree.

{¶ 5} When a defendant maintains that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence,

"an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving 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. Otten (1986),33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340.

This court may only invoke the power to reverse based on manifest weight in extraordinary circumstances where the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily in favor of a defendant.Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d at 340.

{¶ 6} R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) states that "[n]o person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force." Threat of force includes any action that would cause the victim to believe that the defendant would use physical force if the victim refused to submit. State v. Schaim (1992),65 Ohio St.3d 51, paragraph one of the syllabus. One acts purposely when he either has the specific intent to cause a certain result or he intends to engage in conduct of a certain nature where that nature of conduct is prohibited by law. R.C. 2901.22(A).

{¶ 7} The evidence in this case revealed that Appellant and Azzarello had been dating for a few weeks before the alleged rape. After meeting at a gas station during July 2002, Azzarello invited Appellant to her apartment where they engaged in consensual vaginal sex. Over approximately the next month, Azzarello and Appellant engaged in consensual sex at her apartment one or two more times.

{¶ 8} On August 20, 2002, Azzarello's roommate, Billy Williams ("Williams") took her to the VA Clinic at St. Joseph's Hospital for a regular gynecological exam. Azzarello was suffering from pain and bleeding in her vagina which increased during sexual activity. Physician's assistant Patricia Filus ("Filus"), Azzarello's regular medical provider through the VA system, conducted both a pap smear and cervical exam. Filus determined that Azzarello suffered from cervicitis because Azzarello had abnormal discomfort and pain with movement of her cervix, and her cervix bled easily when touched with a q-tip. Filus prescribed antibiotics and gave Azzarello a pad to control the bleeding.

{¶ 9} That same evening, around 11:30 p.m., Appellant arrived at Azzarello's apartment. Appellant and Azzarello disagreed about who let him into the apartment — she testified that Williams admitted him, while he insisted Azzarello herself did. Regardless, Appellant entered the apartment and took over an internet pool game that Azzarello was playing on the computer. Williams and another man nicknamed "Mookie" were also present at that time, watching Sports Center on the television. Appellant's and Azzarello's recollections of that evening diverge from there.

{¶ 10} Azzarello and Williams testified that Azzarello and Appellant wrestled around playfully on the floor for about ten minutes. After that, Azzarello went into her bedroom and set the alarm for 6 a.m. so that Appellant could get to work on time in the morning. Appellant remained outside the bedroom for another ten or fifteen minutes with Williams and Mookie before joining Azzarello in the bedroom. When he entered the room, he shut and locked the door behind him.

{¶ 11} Azzarello stated that Appellant began to take off his clothes after entering the bedroom. She, however, immediately told him that she did not want to do anything sexual with him because she was in pain. She did not want to hurt herself more by having sex with Appellant. Appellant then insisted that Azzarello could "still give [him] head." She refused. Appellant then stated that Azzarello must "[d]o it or else." Azzarello testified that she believed Appellant would hit her if she did not comply.

{¶ 12} After she performed oral sex on Appellant for a few minutes, Appellant started to take off Azzarello's shorts. She told him to stop, but he did not. Instead, he continued removing her shorts, and penetrated her anus with his fingers. He then got on top of her and "[stuck] his private area in [her] butt, and [she] told him to stop, and he didn't stop." Azzarello kept telling him to stop, and continually hit Appellant in the stomach, but Appellant would not stop.

{¶ 13} When Azzarello tried to move away from Appellant, he pulled her back toward him and penetrated her vagina with his penis. Azzarello told him to stop because it hurt her, but he would not. Instead, Appellant placed a pillow over Azzarello's mouth to stop her from getting any louder. Every time she tried to pull away, Appellant would pull her back to him. The pain got worse, and Azzarello could feel blood dripping down her leg. After this, Appellant again demanded oral sex, telling Azzarello that he would hit her if she did not comply. When Azzarello complied, she could taste blood in her mouth.

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

Related

State v. Moore, Unpublished Decision (12-17-2003)
2003 Ohio 6817 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
State v. Otten
515 N.E.2d 1009 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1986)
State v. Schaim
600 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2004 Ohio 1610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-morries-unpublished-decision-3-31-2004-ohioctapp-2004.