State v. Mathis
| Decision Date | 12 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 107365,107365 |
| Citation | 2019 Ohio 3654 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID L. MATHIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Appearances:
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Katherine Mullin, Jeffrey Schnatter, and Kristen Hatcher, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Mark A. Stanton, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Paul A. Kuzmins, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
{¶ 1} A jury found defendant-appellant David Mathis guilty of five counts of rape, two counts of gross sexual imposition and two counts of kidnapping a 12- year-old girl. The trial court sentenced Mathis to concurrent terms of life in prison with parole eligibility after 20 years. Mathis now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} The following facts were adduced at trial. After an altercation with other students at school, A.T., the 12-year-old victim in this case, went to the Windermere rapid station rather than taking the school bus home. A.T. intended to take the rapid to her father's house but she instead met Mathis.
{¶ 3} Mathis, who was over 50 years old at the time, was running a cafe at the rapid station. Mathis told A.T. that she looked pretty and he cooked her some food. A.T. told Mathis about the incident at school. She also told him that she was afraid her mother would be upset because she was given a detention that day.
{¶ 4} Mathis told A.T. that he would provide her a motel room for the evening where she could stay by herself. She agreed. After closing the cafe, Mathis drove A.T. to a nearby motel. Once they were in the room, A.T. described how Mathis hugged and kissed her. She testified that she was scared. Mathis got undressed and he removed A.T.'s school uniform. A.T. testified that Mathis kissed her breasts and vagina. Mathis penetrated her vagina digitally and with his penis. A.T. stated that Mathis took a condom out of his pocket and put it on before having sex with her. After he finished, he flushed it down the toilet. Police found a portion of a condom wrapper in the room.
{¶ 5} Mathis told A.T. that he was leaving for the night to go home to his wife but that he would likely return for her in the morning. A.T. explained that she did not leave the motel because it was nighttime. Instead, she redressed in her uniform and slept in the bed.
{¶ 6} In the morning, Mathis did return and he undressed both himself and A.T. He kissed her breasts and vagina again before he put on a condom and proceeded to have vaginal sex with her. After he finished, he flushed the condom down the toilet.
{¶ 7} Mathis agreed to A.T.'s account of the events for the most part, disputing it to the extent that she claimed he touched her or had sex with her. Mathis did admit that he had sex on the bed in that motel room the evening he met A.T., but asserted that it was before he brought A.T. to the motel and was with an adult woman whom he described as a "friend."
{¶ 8} The next day A.T. was taken to the police station after she was reported as missing the night before. There, during an interview with officers, A.T. explained how she met Mathis at the cafe. She stated that he offered to take her to a motel for the evening, that he left her there by herself overnight and that he returned in the morning and drove her to a friend's house. A.T. disclosed and detailed Mathis touching, kissing and having sex with her.
{¶ 9} A.T. was taken to Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital where she was examined and treated for sexual assault. She was still wearing her school uniform. She told the nurse examining her the same version of events that she toldto the police officers, detailing the vaginal intercourse as well as the extent to which she was touched, kissed and licked both the previous evening as well as that morning. As part of A.T.'s examination and treatment, a rape kit was collected from A.T. which included the clothing she was wearing as well as swabs taken from various parts of her body.
{¶ 10} DNA analyses were performed on these items. The analyses indicated that Mathis' genetic material was present in multiple items including swabs from A.T.'s breasts and the inside crotch of her underwear, anal swabs and fingernail scrapings.
{¶ 11} At trial, A.T. testified to the same version of events that she communicated to the police officers as well as to the nurse at the hospital. She further explained that she did not initially disclose the extent of the physical contact with Mathis because she was scared. She stated that during her interview with police she started having "flashbacks" about what had happened and "saw everything in [her] head" and that is what prompted her to eventually relate the whole story to the officers.
{¶ 12} Mathis testified at trial, agreeing with A.T.'s timeline of events but disputed ever having sex with or touching her. Instead, he claimed A.T. was lying and argued that any of his genetic material found in the rape kit was transferred to A.T. when she slept in the bed where Mathis and his friend had previously had sex. After hearing the evidence at trial, the jury found Mathis guilty. This appeal follows.
{¶ 13} Mathis raises six assignments of error for our review:
{¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Mathis asserts a claim for prosecutorial misconduct based on portions of the prosecutor's cross-examination of his character witnesses. Mathis argues that there were three incidents of misconduct. First, he argues that the prosecutor inappropriately questioned the character witnesses about a previous arrest. Second, he argues that the state improperly questioned the character witnesses about an assault conviction. Third, Mathis argues that the state's cross-examination of the character witnesses violated Evid.R. 608 and 609. The state concedes that it was error for the prosecutor to haveinquired about the alleged assault conviction, but argues that it was a harmless error.
{¶ 15} In analyzing a prosecutorial misconduct claim "the relevant question is whether the prosecutor's conduct 'so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.'" State v. Belton, 149 Ohio St.3d 165, 2016-Ohio-1581, 74 N.E.3d 319, ¶ 125, quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). Answering this question requires this court to consider (1) "whether the challenged conduct was improper" and, if so (2) "whether it prejudicially affected the defendant's substantial rights." State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359, 2018-Ohio-1562, 114 N.E.3d 1092, ¶ 172, citing State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, 9 N.E.3d 930, ¶ 243. In determining whether the defendant was prejudiced, any misconduct is viewed "'in the context of the entire trial.'" Id., quoting State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d 402, 410, 613 N.E.2d 203 (1993).
{¶ 16} Mathis argues that the prosecutor should not have been able to question his character witnesses about his prior arrest for domestic violence because domestic violence is "of no relevance in this case." We disagree.
{¶ 17} Evid.R. 404(A)(1) governs the admissibility of character evidence and in relevant part provides "[e]vidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same is admissible * * *." Where a defendant elicits testimony from a witness pertaining to a particular character traitof the defendant, he or she thereby "opens the door" for the prosecution to rebut that testimony. State v. Garcia, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102546, 2016-Ohio-585, ¶ 68. This court has recognized that the Evid.R. 404(A)(1) staff notes are instructive as to this point. See, e.g., id.; see, e.g., State v. Lamar-Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102688, 2016-Ohio-21, ¶ 20. In relevant part, the Evid.R. 404(A)(1) staff notes explain:
The basic rule is that the defendant may, at his option, offer evidence of his good character as proof that he did not commit the act charged because such conduct is not in accord with his character. * * * If the accused offers evidence of his good character, then and only then, can the prosecution offer evidence of the bad character of the accused.
{¶ 18} Evid.R. 405(A) provides that "[i]n all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to the reputation or testimony in the form of an opinion." A defendant may thus call a witness to testify about his or her opinion of the defendant or about the defendant's reputation in the community. However, if a defendant offers this kind of evidence, Evid.R. 405(A) then permits the state to cross-examine that witness as to "relevant specific instances of conduct."
A character witness may be cross-examined as to the existence of reports of particular acts, vices, or associations of the person concerning whom he has...
To continue reading
Request your trial