State v. Benedict
| Decision Date | 11 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3-21-08 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua A.C. BENEDICT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Mark R. Devan, Cleveland, for Appellant.
Mathew E. Crall, for Appellee.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Joshua A.C. Benedict ("Benedict"), appeals the September 5, 2019, October 23, 2019, and January 2, 2020 judgment entries of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} The genesis of this case is Benedict's sexual activity with a minor child, M.P. (in 2015), and his taking of a digital image of her female genitalia with his computer tablet. After M.P. disclosed Benedict's sexual abuse of her in 2018, an investigation commenced and Benedict's tablet was seized. An analysis of that tablet by law enforcement yielded a digital image of M.P.’s genitalia as well as additional contraband (i.e., child pornography) involving minor children.
{¶3} On January 8, 2019, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted Benedict on the following 130 criminal charges: Counts One and Two for rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), both first-degree felonies; Count Three for gross sexual imposition ("GSI") in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), a third-degree felony; Counts Four and Five for pandering obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(3), both second-degree felonies; and Counts Six through 130 for pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5), all fourth-degree felonies. Importantly, Counts One through Five arose from events occurring in 2015 and Counts Six through 130 arose from events occurring in 2018. On January 15, 2019, Benedict appeared for arraignment and entered not guilty pleas.
{¶4} Benedict filed several pretrial motions including a motion to sever counts of the indictment, a motion to determine the reliability of the complaining witness’ testimony (M.P.), and a motion to suppress requesting a Franks hearing.1 The trial court held a hearing on August 12, 2019 regarding the motions. However, after convening the hearing, the parties and the trial court agreed to continue the complaining-witness-reliability motion hearing until a later date. Thereafter, the trial court denied Benedict's request for severance as well as his Frank ’s -hearing request. Ultimately, on October 21, 2019, the trial court overruled Benedict's motion to determine the reliability of the complaining witness.
{¶5} Prior to trial, the State dismissed Counts Five, 13, 17-20, 37, 47, 51-53, 70, 99-130, without prejudice. (Doc. Nos. 121, 122). Additionally, the State requested to amend Counts One through Four to enlarge the date of the offenses and to amend Counts 71-98 regarding the digital-image evidence. The trial court granted both of the State's requests.
{¶6} Benedict proceeded to a jury trial on April 26, 2021, wherein he was found guilty of all of the remaining charges. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Benedict to two consecutive prison terms of 15 years to life plus 60 months.
{¶7} Benedict filed a timely notice of appeal and raises the following four assignments of error for our review.
The trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to sever Counts 1-5 from Counts 6-98 of the indictment for purposes of trial depriving him of his constitutional right to a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 & 16 of the Ohio Constitution. (9-5-19, 1-2-20, Judgment Entries).
Assignment of Error No. II
Appellant's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly challenge the search warrants that issued which were based on affidavits that lacked probable cause and contained false information. (May 17, 2019, Motion to Suppress, State's Ex. J).
Assignment of Error No. III
The trial court erred and denied Appellant his constitutional rights secured by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution to cross-examine an adverse witness on bias, prejudice, and motive to misrepresent the facts. (Tr. Vol. II, 4-27-21 at p. 460-461).
Assignment of Error No. IV
The trial court failed to hold a pre-trial taint hearing resulting in the admission of unreliable testimony that was a product of suggestive interrogation, multiple interviews, prompting, and manipulation, in violation of Appellant's constitutional rights secured by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 & 16 of the Ohio Constitution. (10-23-19, 1-2-20, Judgment Entries).
{¶8} We begin by addressing Benedict's first assignment of error, followed by his third assignment of error, then his fourth assignment of error, concluding with his second assignment of error.
Assignment of Error No. I
The trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to sever Counts 1-5 from Counts 6-98 of the indictment for purposes of trial depriving him of his constitutional right to a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 & 16 of the Ohio Constitution. (9-5-19, 1-2-20, Judgment Entries).
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Benedict argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever the offenses in the indictment. Specifically, Benedict argues that the trial court should have ordered separate trials for the 2015 offenses (Counts 1-4) and 2018 offenses (Counts 6-12, 14-16, 21-36, 48-50, 54-69, 71-98).
{¶10} "Issues of joinder and severance are generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Plott , 3d Dist., 2017-Ohio-38, 80 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 52. An abuse of discretion implies that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably. State v. Adams , 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980). However, "[w]hether charges were misjoined in a single indictment in contravention of Crim.R. 8(A) is an issue of law that this court reviews de novo." State v. Jeffries , 1st Dist., 2018-Ohio-2160, 112 N.E.3d 417, ¶ 51, citing State v. Kennedy , 1st Dist., 2013-Ohio-4221, 998 N.E.2d 1189, ¶ 24. "De novo review is independent, without deference to the lower court's decision." State v. Hudson , 3d Dist., 2013-Ohio-647, 986 N.E.2d 1128, ¶ 27, citing Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. of Ohio , 64 Ohio St.3d 145, 147, 593 N.E.2d 286 (1992).
{¶11} "In general, the law favors joining multiple offenses in a single trial if the offenses charged ‘are of the same or similar character.’ " State v. Valentine , 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 18 CA 27, 2019-Ohio-2243, 2019 WL 2394239, ¶ 43, quoting State v. Lott , 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 163, 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990), citing State v. Torres , 66 Ohio St.2d 340, 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981). "[T]wo or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment if they ‘are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.’ " Id. , quoting Crim.R. 8(A) ; See also R.C. 2941.04. "Where joinder is not appropriate under Crim.R. 8(A) because the offenses do not meet at least one of the four joinder requirements, the trial court should grant a motion to sever, even in the absence of prejudice." Kennedy at ¶ 24.
{¶12} Joinder "conserves resources by avoiding duplication inherent in multiple trials and minimizes the possibility of incongruous results that can occur in successive trials before different juries." State v. Hamblin , 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 158, 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988). Notwithstanding the public policy favoring joinder, Crim.R. 14 permits a criminal defendant to request relief from prejudicial joinder (severance) in an indictment if that defendant establishes "he or she is prejudiced by joinder of multiple offenses."
State v. LaMar , 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-2128, 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 49.
To prevail on a motion to sever, a defendant has the burden of demonstrating that ‘(1) his rights were prejudiced, (2) that at the time of the motion to sever he provided the trial court with sufficient information so that it could weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant's right to a fair trial, and (3) that given the information provided to the court, it abused its discretion in refusing to separate the charges for trial.’
Plott , 2017-Ohio-38, 80 N.E.3d 1108, at ¶ 55, quoting State v. Schaim , 65 Ohio St.3d 51, 59, 600 N.E.2d 661 (1992). "A defendant's claim of prejudice is negated when: (1) evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible as ‘other acts’ evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) or (2) the evidence of each crime joined at trial is simple and direct." State v. Ahmed , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84220, 2005-Ohio-2999, 2005 WL 1406282, ¶ 22, citing Lott at 163, 555 N.E.2d 293, Schaim at 59, 600 N.E.2d 661, and State v. Franklin , 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 122, 580 N.E.2d 1 (1991).
{¶13} Under the "other acts" test, the State is required to show that the other crimes, wrongs, or acts would be admissible for some other purpose other than a nonpermissible propensity purpose. " ‘ Evid.R. 404(B) provides that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith." ’ " State v. Bagley , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-31, 2014-Ohio-1787, 2014 WL 1692720, ¶ 56, quoting State v. May , 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-11-19, 2012-Ohio-5128, 2012 WL 5397126, ¶ 69, quoting Evid.R. 404(B). " ‘However, there are exceptions to the general rule: "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." ’ " Bagley at ¶ 56, quoting May at ¶ 69, quoti...
To continue reading
Request your trial