Brandt v. Pompa

• Decision Date: 18 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. 109517,109517
• Parties: Amanda BRANDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roy POMPA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

169 N.E.3d 285

Amanda BRANDT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Roy POMPA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 109517

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 18, 2021

The Fitch Law Firm, John K. Fitch, Columbus, and Kirstin A. Peterson, for appellant

Samuel R. Smith II, Cleveland, for appellees.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Amanda Brandt, appeals from the trial court's judgment that reduced the jury verdict for noneconomic damages pursuant to R.C. 2315.18. Brandt contends that as applied to her, a victim of sexual abuse as a minor, R.C. 2315.18 is unconstitutional. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. Background

{¶ 2} From 2002 to 2006, defendant-appellee Roy Pompa molested and sexually assaulted numerous female children in his home. He molested Brandt, who was age 11 and 12 during the abuse, in 2004 and 2005. Brandt was a friend of one of Pompa's daughters and would often spend the night at the Pompas’ home. On many occasions, Pompa put illicit substances in Brandt's drinks before she went to sleep in order to commit sexual acts against her without her knowing or being fully aware.

{¶ 3} Pompa recorded many of these acts, which were uncovered following several searches of Pompa's home initiated by the Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force and the Brook Park police. State v. Pompa , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90110, 2008-Ohio-3672, 2008 WL 2833498, ¶ 2-3. Pompa also possessed child pornography depicting children as young as three being sexually abused by adults.

{¶ 4} Pompa was arrested and convicted of 17 counts of rape, 5 counts of kidnapping, 55 counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, 21 counts of gross sexual imposition, and possession of criminal tools, among other convictions, and sentenced to life in prison. Pompa at ¶ 7, 9.

{¶ 5} In 2018, Brandt filed a complaint against Pompa, asserting claims for intentional criminal wrongdoing, knowing dissemination of child pornography, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Brandt also asserted a claim for declaratory judgment that as applied to the facts of her case, R.C. 2315.18 is unconstitutional.¹

II. Trial Testimony

{¶ 6} At trial, the jury heard the parties’ stipulation regarding Pompa's convictions for his offenses against Brandt, which included 34 instances of abuse that occurred from May 2004 to November 2005. The jury also watched Pompa's videotaped deposition, in which he admitted that he recorded incidents involving his sexual abuse of Brandt on at least eight occasions.

{¶ 7} Brandt's mother testified that prior to the abuse, Brandt was "a beautiful, happy-go-lucky friend to everyone" who "wanted to conquer the world," but after the abuse, she "never wanted to go anywhere" and "just wanted to be alone." She testified further that the abuse "totally changed" her daughter, and that she does "not have the same daughter anymore." She explained that Brandt "has a lot of anger [and] anxiety issues," and that she "just is not the same kid that we knew growing up and even into her adulthood."

{¶ 8} Brandt, who was 26 years old at trial, testified that prior to the abuse, she had a "pretty normal" childhood. She testified that the Pompas lived about a mile away from her house, and their youngest daughter was her best friend growing up. She said she often went to the Pompas’ house for sleepovers, and that during these sleepovers, before she went to bed, Pompa would give her already-opened juice boxes, iced tea, or water laced with illicit drugs that left her feeling groggy when she woke up. Brandt testified that despite being drugged, she could recall some instances of abuse, including one where she woke thinking a cat was rubbing against her but then realized it was a hand rubbing her vagina.

{¶ 9} Brandt read for the jury a letter she had written to the trial judge in Pompa's criminal trial before his sentencing. In the letter, written when Brandt was twelve years old, Brandt told the judge that she had been involved in many activities before the abuse, but now did not want to go anywhere. She said the abuse had caused "serious emotional problems" for her, and as a result, she was seeing a counselor, sometimes multiple times each week. She said she had lost her best friend as a result of the abuse and had difficulty sleeping, and her grades had dropped because she was always distracted. She asked that Pompa be given the death penalty.

{¶ 10} Brandt testified that she was a "very angry kid" after the abuse, and had "a lot of breakdowns" that required counseling. She said she began counseling immediately after her family learned of the abuse, had seen numerous counselors over the years, and was "still in counseling to this day." Brandt said she hopes to someday not need counseling "but that's not even on the radar right now."

{¶ 11} Brandt testified that she suffers from "constant nightmares" that began during the abuse but still continue and make it difficult for her to function during the day because she does not get enough sleep. She said she takes medication to help with the nightmares but still has them at least five times a week. She said a majority of the nightmares involve her being trapped in Pompa's house.

{¶ 12} Brandt testified that she suffers from PTSD and anxiety issues that she attributes to the abuse. She said she gets anxiety attacks if she is in large groups of people, so she does her grocery shopping at Walmart at 2 or 3 a.m. because not many people are there at that time. She said that she can no longer be in nightclubs, perform community service, or go to concerts for the same reason. She said she currently takes Zoloft

to help with her mood and depression, and that she had taken numerous other drugs over the years "trying to get this under control."

{¶ 13} Brandt testified that after graduating high school in 2011, she found a job working full time in a customer call center and moved into her own apartment. She said she initially did well at the job, but was terminated after a few years because her anxiety had increased, making it difficult for her to fulfill the job requirements. Brandt then obtained a door-to-door sales job at which she met a coworker who was a heroin addict. Brandt said she began using heroin at the coworker's encouragement that it would make her feel better, which led to her drug addiction.

{¶ 14} The door-to-door sales job did not work out, and Brandt could no longer afford her apartment. Brandt said she met a man online who lived in Michigan, and decided to move there to live with him because she "liked the idea of being able to go somewhere and make a life for myself." Brandt testified "that wasn't a great plan" because he was homeless and a drug addict. She and the man lived in a tent for approximately a year.

{¶ 15} Brandt said she eventually decided she "was done living like this" and moved back in with her parents for a few months. She said her mental health continued to worsen, however, and she tried to commit suicide by overdosing on heroin. Upon her discharge from the hospital, she began attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and at the time of trial, had been clean for six years.

{¶ 16} Brandt met her husband six months after she became sober. They lived together and eventually married, and have two young children. Brandt testified that although she works part-time as a waitress, she has completed the necessary classes to obtain to her real estate license and hopes to start a career in real estate.

{¶ 17} The jury watched the videotaped deposition of Brandt's expert, Dr. Patrick Yingling, a clinical psychologist, who evaluated Brandt in June 2019. Dr Yingling took a history from Brandt and administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. In light of her responses to the test and his review of medical records and other documents, Dr. Yingling opined that Brandt suffers from PTSD as a result of Pompa's sexual abuse. He further opined that her symptoms would continue "with some degree of intensity" for a "significant" period of time and that she would benefit from ongoing psychotherapy and medications.

{¶ 18} On cross-examination, Dr. Yingling conceded there was "an indication" in Brandt's deposition that "there was a family history of substance abuse issues." He further conceded that the medical records he reviewed indicated that Brandt attempted suicide more than once, but that she mentioned only one attempt to him. Dr. Yingling testified further that he had observed in the medical records that at least one other of Brandt's family members had attempted suicide, but Brandt did not mention this to him.

{¶ 19} Dr. Yingling also conceded that the medical records indicated that Brandt had had an abusive boyfriend, but she did not tell him about that relationship. He testified that it would be important to know about an abusive relationship when diagnosing PTSD because such a relationship can contribute to PTSD. Dr. Yingling admitted that he does not dispute that homelessness can lead to PTSD, and that a heroin overdose

could "cause or contribute to" a diagnosis of PTSD. Dr. Yingling further admitted that an individual's relationship with their parents, siblings, and extended family can be important to a diagnosis of PTSD, but conceded that he did not "specifically ask with that level of detail about [Brandt's] family history." Dr. Yingling also testified that it impossible to know "the precise moment" when Brandt "officially had PTSD" or how long her symptoms will continue. Finally, he admitted that any questioning of Brandt about the sexual abuse outside of a therapeutic setting — such as her testimony at Pompa's criminal trial — could lead to an increase in the intensity of her symptoms.

{¶ 20} The jury returned a verdict for Brandt for compensatory damages of $14 million for noneconomic damages incurred prior to April 6, 2005, (the effective date of R.C....