State v. Ambrosia, L-88-058
Decision Date | 04 May 1990 |
Docket Number | No. L-88-058,L-88-058 |
Citation | 67 Ohio App.3d 552,587 N.E.2d 892 |
Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. AMBROSIA, Appellant. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under Ohio law, an indictment for repeated sexual contact need not specify the exact dates of each contact where the state does not possess or cannot reasonably obtain such information.
2. A unanimous verdict may be reached in a case where the indictment alleges that a child was raped intermittently within a specified time period even though the exact date of each rape is unknown because the jury must either believe or disbelieve the victim's testimony that the pattern of conduct occurred.
3. Opinion evidence of character, as the term is used in Evid.R. 405(A), does not include an expert opinion of character traits assessed by a psychologist pursuant to a psychological evaluation.
Anthony G. Pizza, Pros. Atty., and Thomas N. Tomczak, Toledo, for appellee.
John F. Potts, Toledo, for appellant.
This matter is before the court upon appeal of the January 29, 1988 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas sentencing appellant, Ronald Ambrosia, to life imprisonment for violation of R.C. 2907.02.
Appellant was indicted on June 17, 1987, for three counts of violating R.C. 2907.02. It was alleged that appellant compelled his minor stepdaughter Monica Ambrosia, to submit by force or threat of force to sexual conduct. The first count alleged that such conduct occurred in 1984. The second count alleged that such conduct occurred in 1985. The third count alleged that such conduct occurred in 1986. The indictment was subsequently expanded upon in an amended bill of particulars wherein the state identified the dates of the alleged offenses as occurring between January 1, 1984 and December 31, 1984; between January 1, 1985 and December 31, 1985; and between January 1, 1986 and August 1986. The state further explained that the offenses allegedly occurred at or near 5651 Knightsbridge, Toledo, Ohio, the home of appellant and his family, including the victim. Appellant filed various motions to compel discovery or dismiss the indictment asserting that more specific dates were necessary for the defense to adequately prepare its case, but each motion was denied. The state asserted that it was unable to be more specific because the victim could not recall the dates of any of the offenses. Appellant filed a notice of claim of alibi although he did not present any alibi during trial. In addition, the state's motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding the results of appellant's psychological and physiological tests was granted. The case proceeded to trial by jury, and appellant was found guilty of all three counts.
Appellant asserts that the following errors occurred in the trial below:
In his first assignment of error, appellant alleges that he was denied his constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution to be notified of the nature and cause of the accusation. More specifically, appellant alleges that the failure to identify the specific dates on which the rapes occurred prevented appellant from preparing a viable defense. Furthermore, appellant alleges that an unanimous verdict is impossible where the indictment does not classify each specific incident as a separate count. Therefore, appellant contends that the indictment should have been dismissed prior to trial. In support of his argument, appellant relies on Ohio case law and cases from other jurisdictions, namely, Knight v. State (Fla.App.1987), 506 So.2d 1182; People v. MacAfee (1980), 76 App.Div.2d 157, 431 N.Y.S.2d 149; and United States v. Parente (D.Conn.1978), 449 F.Supp. 905.
In order to determine what information must be included within an indictment under Ohio law, we look to R.C. 2941.01 et seq. R.C. 2941.03(E) provides that an indictment is sufficient "if it can be understood therefrom * * * [t]hat the offense was committed at some time prior to the time of finding of the indictment * * *." Each count of the indictment must contain "a statement that the accused has committed some public offense therein specified." R.C. 2941.05. An indictment is valid even if it states the time imperfectly or omits the time where the time is not an essential element of the offense. R.C. 2941.08(B) and (C). Other defects in the indictment do not render it invalid where there was no prejudice to the defendant. R.C. 2941.08(K).
Crim.R. 7 also governs the issue of what information must be included within the indictment. That section reads as follows:
This rule does not indicate that the time and date of the alleged offense must be included within the indictment.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has likewise held that the exact time and date of the alleged offense need not be specified in the indictment unless the time and date are essential elements of the offense. State v. Sellards (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 171, 17 OBR 410, 411-412, 478 N.E.2d 781, 784. The Sellards case involved an indictment which charged the defendant with three counts of rape and four counts of importuning. In all seven counts, it was alleged that the defendant had engaged in certain illegal conduct within a specified time frame. While the court recognized that more specific dates need not be included within the indictment or the bill of particulars, it did require that the state disclose such information in a bill of particulars if known. Id. at syllabus. Because there was no proof in the Sellards case that the state deliberately withheld the time and date of the alleged crime and the defendant never filed notice of its intent to rely on an alibi, the court found that the indictment was valid and upheld the conviction. Id. at 172, 17 OBR at 412-413, 478 N.E.2d at 784-785. Furthermore, the court held that the general rule could be overcome if the defendant could demonstrate that his defense was materially prejudiced by the lack of specificity regarding the time and date of the alleged offense. Id.
Other appellate courts have followed the same reasoning that where no evidence was admitted which indicated that the defendant may have been elsewhere during part of the time period covered by the indictment, no prejudice results from the failure to specify the date and time of the alleged crime in the indictment. State v. Barnecut (1988), 44 Ohio App.3d 149, 542 N.E.2d 353, and State v. Gingell (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 364, 7 OBR 464, 455 N.E.2d 1066.
In two of the cases cited by appellant, Knight v. State, supra, and People v. MacAfee, supra, the state's criminal procedures mandated that the time and date of the alleged offense be specifically identified. Thus, these two cases are distinguishable from the case before us because Ohio's Criminal Rules do not contain a similar requirement.
Finally, appellant cites to United States v. Parente, supra, in support of his argument that the indictment must be more specific. The Parente court held that an indictment, which alleged that certain crimes occurred in the "summer months of 1974," was too indefinite and, therefore, was insufficient. However, this case is only persuasive authority in support of appellant's argument. Following Ohio's statutes and Ohio common law, we find that the indictment in this case was sufficient.
Wherefore, we find appellant's first assignment of error not well taken.
In his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the lower court should have granted a mistrial after the victim testified that one of the rapes occurred on a Saturday night in 1986 toward the end of the school year, a date more specific than that listed in the indictment.
On December 7, 1987, an in-chambers conference was held regarding appellant's motion to compel discovery or dismiss the indictment and motion for an order to disclose grand jury matters. During the conference, appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Blankenburg
...the jury must either believe or disbelieve the victim's testimony that the pattern of conduct occurred. State v. Ambrosia, 67 Ohio App.3d 552, 587 N.E.2d 892 (6th Dist.1990).{¶ 23} While some of the separate acts might have been separately charged, the possibility of but one conviction rath......
-
State v. Barnes
...App.3d 275, 650 N.E.2d 502 (one-to five-year time frames sufficient when dealing with a victim of tender years); State v. Ambrosia (1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 552, 587 N.E.2d 892 (one-year time frame sufficient when dealing with a victim of tender years); State v. Barnecut (1988), 44 Ohio App.3d......
-
Blankenburg v. Miller, Case No. 1:16-cv-505
...the jury must either believe or disbelieve the victim's testimony that the pattern of conduct occurred. SeeState v. Ambrosia, 67 Ohio App.3d 552, 587 N.E.2d 892 (6th Dist.1990). [**P23] While some of the separate acts might have been separately charged, the possibility of but one conviction......
-
Com. v. Trowbridge
...elsewhere preclude such evidence. See, e.g., Pendleton v. Commonwealth, 685 S.W.2d 549, 553 (Ky.1985); State v. Ambrosia, 67 Ohio App.3d 552, 562, 587 N.E.2d 892 (1990); Williams v. State, 649 S.W.2d 693, 695-696 (Tex.Ct.App.1983). The exclusion is often on the ground that "scientific and c......