State v. Stevens
| Docket Number | L-21-1219 |
| Decision Date | 21 December 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 Ohio 4683 |
| Parties | State of Ohio Appellee v. Ronald Stevens Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy M Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
William L. Burton, for appellant.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
{¶ 1} Appellant, Ronald Stevens, appeals from the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of multiple sex offenses against six minor students of a local school district. For the reasons that follow, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
{¶ 2} On January 31, 2020, appellant was charged in a 32-count indictment with nine counts of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and (B); six counts of sexual battery, in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(7) and (B); 12 counts of gross sexual imposition, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1) and (C); and five counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor, in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(5) and (C).
{¶ 3} On December 17, 2020, the state served supplemental discovery related to several electronic devices, including a cell phone belonging to "Victim #1" (victim "T.S."). The prosecutor noted that T.S.'s phone would be "available to review at the prosecutor's office."
{¶ 4} On January 5, 2021, defense counsel filed a motion to compel discovery "as it concerns the phone of alleged victim #1." The motion, which sought "the information of the alleged victim's phone," argued that the prosecution had "only made the alleged victim's phone available to view at the prosecutor's office," which was an arrangement that "[did] not permit the Defendant to review the discovery and prepare a defense." The state treated the motion as one seeking access to the full forensic extraction of the victim's cell phone and opposed it.
{¶ 5} In a pretrial conference held on February 2, 2021, the parties discussed the motion to compel and clarified that the motion related to the second of two phones that were possessed by T.S. It was undisputed that T.S. used the first phone prior to the indictment in this case, and the second, after the indictment.
{¶ 6} During the pretrial conference, the prosecutor explained that the victim gave his first phone, by consent, to investigating officers and then Sylvania police downloaded the information that was contained on the phone. The prosecutor further explained that "at some point during the transfer from the downloaded extraction to the server or the hard drive where Sylvania stores this stuff something happened where that was corrupted or not saved properly and so that information doesn't exist." Following the data transfer failure, the state attempted to retrieve the phone, which had since been returned to T.S. At that point, it was discovered that the phone was severely damaged and, as a consequence of that damage, information could no longer be recovered from the device. In the meantime, T.S. had obtained a second phone.
{¶ 7} The prosecutor stated that information from the second phone was downloaded and extracted, but that the defense "[had] not made a plausible showing" that there was anything "material to the indictment or exculpatory" in the information recovered from a phone that had been acquired after appellant was incarcerated. The prosecutor further stated that he was not intending to use any information obtained from the second phone in his case in chief, and that during his cursory review of the phone he did not see any communications between appellant and the victim.
{¶ 8} Following the state's comments, defense counsel requested a determination as to whether information from the first phone was contained in cloud storage for the second phone. Responding to defense counsel's request, the trial court ordered the state to "endeavor to ascertain" whether the information from the first phone was contained in the Cloud or in any other digital archive. The prosecutor agreed to "ask the question" of Sylvania police, but also pointed out that appellant himself had two cell phones -- one of which was taken during the investigation and another that was taken after the arrest warrant was issued -- that both phones, in their entirety, had been provided to defense counsel in discovery, and that any communication between appellant and T.S. "should have been or would have been" on the phones.
{¶ 9} At a subsequent pretrial conference held on May 25, 2021, the prosecutor mentioned that there was "additional electronic information" available for defense counsel to review in the prosecutor's office, including "some iCloud data" and "some other data" from the victim's phone -- none of which the prosecutor believed to be relevant. Defense counsel stated that he had not yet had an opportunity to review the data -- and so he had not made his own determination as to whether it contained exculpatory evidence -- but that he would discuss the matter with his co-counsel and would likely talk to the prosecutor sometime during the next week.
{¶ 10} Trial in the case began on September 14, 2021. Notwithstanding the discussion of the phones that took place during the pretrial conferences, during the cross-examination of T.S.'s mother regarding T.S.'s disclosure of abuse by way of a note typed into his (first) phone, defense counsel objected on the grounds that he had never seen the note. Specifically, defense counsel stated that destruction of the phone was "destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence" and, on that basis, defense counsel moved for dismissal of the case. The trial court denied the motion, stating that the matter should have been raised before trial. Upon further cross-examination, T.S.'s mother clarified that the note was not contained in T.S.'s phone messages; rather it was typed into the notepad application on his phone. She also testified that she did not know whether the note could still be seen on the phone when it was initially given to police.
{¶ 11} At the conclusion of the case, the jury found appellant guilty of nine counts of rape, six counts of sexual battery, 11 counts of gross sexual imposition, and three counts of pandering in obscenity involving a minor. The trial court imposed consecutive prison sentences for each count, with an aggregate minimum term of 101 years and a maximum aggregate term of 104 years and six months.
The Evidence at Trial
{¶ 12} Darcy Browne, the assistant principal of the Ottawa Hills junior and senior high schools, testified that the Ottawa Hills is recognized as a public school district in the state of Ohio. She testified that appellant had been employed at Ottawa Hills Schools ("the school"), most recently as the director of operations, but before that as an employee in the accounts payable department, and before that, as a custodian. She characterized appellant as friendly, helpful, and easy to work with. She testified that he resided in the Village of Ottawa Hills, that his wife, Kristie Stevens, worked at the school, and that his children were students in the school.
{¶ 13} According to Browne, appellant had master keys that allowed him to enter the school at any time of the day or night, even when it was closed to students. He had two offices, one in the high school, in a tunnel near the locker room, and one off of the gym in the elementary school. The school's security system included cameras that were located in the halls and by the main entrances. Browne commented that appellant was good with electronics.
{¶ 14} On November 19, 2019, victim T.S., an Ottawa Hills student, returned to the school after he was hospitalized following a suicide attempt. When he returned, his parent requested that appellant not have any contact with T.S. {¶ 15} Several weeks later, on December 10, 2019, T.S. came into the school office. Browne testified that T.S., who was normally "stoic" and "not really emotional," was visibly upset and crying. When Browne asked him what was wrong, T.S. could not articulate an answer but told Browne, "[C]all my mom, she knows." T.S. subsequently disclosed that he was upset because appellant approached him at school and told him that he missed him. That same day, Children's Services called the school. As a result of that phone call, appellant was placed on administrative paid leave -- meaning that he was not permitted to be on school grounds or to be at school.
{¶ 16} Christopher Sargent testified that in 2019 he was a police sergeant for the Village of Ottawa Hills. He stated that he knew appellant as a "good guy" who was generally liked in the community. Sargent was familiar with appellant's home address and knew that he drove a distinctive bright orange Dodge Ram. Sargent saw the truck in the driveway of T.S.'s house in the middle of the night on numerous occasions.
{¶ 17} After the investigation of T.S.'s statements began, appellant went missing for a period of time. Appellant's wife called the police department because appellant was not answering his phone and she did not know where he was. Sargent testified that he looked for the truck for a couple of hours, but did not locate it.
T.S.
{¶ 18} T.S. was 15-years old and a student at Ottawa Hills when he met appellant. T.S. had no contact with his biological father, but T.S.'s brother, J.S., who had a different biological father, frequently spent weekends away with his father. T.S.'s mother often traveled for work and was often gone on the weekends so that T.S. was left alone. Appellant began to fill the void left by T.S.'s missing father. Appellant helped T.S. with his...
To continue reading
Request your trial