State v. Stevens

Decision Date08 February 2016
Docket NumberNo. 1–14–58.,1–14–58.
Citation58 N.E.3d 584
Parties STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Kevin L. STEVENS, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

58 N.E.3d 584

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Kevin L. STEVENS, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–14–58.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Allen County.

Feb. 8, 2016.


58 N.E.3d 592

Kevin L. Stevens, Appellant.

Jana E. Emerick, Lima, for Appellee.

Kevin L. Stevens, Appellant.

OPINION

PRESTON, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Kevin L. Stevens (“Stevens”), pro se, appeals the November 19, 2014 judgment entry of sentence of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶ 2} This case stems from incidents that occurred on October 8 and 9, 2013. On October 8, the victim invited Stevens to stay the night at her house. The victim went to sleep and awoke after Stevens raped her. On October 9, the victim again invited Stevens to her house to obtain Methadone from him. After the victim obtained the methadone, she asked Stevens to leave. However, because Stevens refused to leave, the victim's sister and her sister's boyfriend came to the victim's house to coax Stevens into leaving. After Stevens left, the victim took her prescribed sleeping medication and went to sleep. She again awoke to Stevens raping her. After discovering that Stevens gained entry into her house and raped her a second time, the victim tossed Stevens's jacket out the back door of her house and, when Stevens went after it, she locked the door behind him. Under the guise of searching for his keys, Stevens regained entry into the victim's house and physically assaulted her.

{¶ 3} On December 12, 2013, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Stevens on three counts, including: Count One of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c), a first-degree felony; Count Two of rape in violation

58 N.E.3d 593

of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), a first-degree felony; and Count Three of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1), a first-degree felony. (Doc. No. 1). The indictment includes a repeat-violent-offender specification. (Id. ).

{¶ 4} On September 2, 2014, the State filed a motion requesting that the trial court issue an arrest warrant for the victim as a material witness. (Doc. No. 184). On that same day, the trial court issued a warrant for the victim's arrest as a material witness. (Doc. No. 186); (Sept. 2, 2014 Tr. at 17).

{¶ 5} The case proceeded to a jury trial on September 15–19, 2014. On September 19, 2014, the jury found Stevens guilty as to the counts in the indictment. (Doc. Nos. 242, 243, 244). The trial court filed its judgment entry of conviction on September 24, 2014. (Doc. No. 248). On November 12, 2014, the trial court determined that Stevens is a repeat violent offender as alleged by the repeat-violent-offender specification of the indictment. (Doc. No. 259); (Nov. 12, 2014 Tr. at 47). The trial court sentenced Stevens to 8 years in prison on Count One, 11 years in prison on Count Two, 5 years in prison on Count Three, and 6 years in prison on the repeat-violent-offender specification, and ordered that Stevens serve the terms consecutively for an aggregate sentence of 30 years. (Doc. No. 259); (Nov. 12, 2014 Tr. at 46–49). The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence on November 19, 2014. (Doc. No. 259).

{¶ 6} On December 15, 2014, Stevens, pro se, filed his notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 262). Several extensions of time were granted for Stevens and the State to file their respective briefs. He raises four assignment of error for our review. For ease of our discussion, we will first address Stevens's third assignment of error, followed by his first, second, and fourth assignments of error.

Assignment of Error No. III

Appellant was Denied the Fundamental Due Process of a Fair and Impartial Trial as Guaranteed by the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I § 16 of the Ohio Constitution where a Conviction Stands Absent Sufficient Evidence.

{¶ 7} In his third assignment of error, Stevens argues that his rape and aggravated-burglary convictions are based on insufficient evidence.1

{¶ 8} “An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997). Accordingly, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. “In deciding if the evidence was sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor assess the credibility of witnesses, as both are functions reserved for the trier of fact.” State v. Jones, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C–120570 and C–120571, 2013-Ohio-4775, 2013 WL 5864591, ¶ 33, citing State v. Williams, 197 Ohio App.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-6267, 968 N.E.2d 27, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.). See also

58 N.E.3d 594

State v. Berry, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4–12–03, 2013-Ohio-2380, 2013 WL 2638704, ¶ 19 (“Sufficiency of the evidence is a test of adequacy rather than credibility or weight of the evidence.”), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

{¶ 9} Stevens was convicted of two counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) and 2907.02(A)(2), respectively, and one count of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1).

R.C. 2907.02 sets forth the offense of rape and provides, in pertinent part: (A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies:

* * *

(c) The other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition * * *, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition * * *.

(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.

R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c), (A)(2).

{¶ 10} R.C. 2907.01(A) defines “sexual conduct,” in relevant part, as “vaginal intercourse between a male and female; * * * and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex.” “A person acts purposely when it is the person's specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is the offender's specific intention to engage in conduct of that nature.” R.C. 2901.22(A).

{¶ 11} First, the relevant inquiries regarding Stevens's rape conviction under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) are whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, is such that any rational trier of fact could have found that: (1) Stevens engaged in sexual conduct with the victim; (2) Stevens and the victim are not married; and (3) the victim's ability to resist or consent was substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition, and Stevens knew or had reasonable cause to believe the victim's ability to resist or consent was substantially impaired because of that mental or physical condition.See R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c).

{¶ 12} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that Stevens's rape conviction under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) is supported by sufficient evidence. A rational trier of fact could conclude that Stevens and the victim are not married, which Stevens does not dispute, and that Stevens engaged in sexual conduct with the victim on October 8, 2013. (Sept. 16, 2014 Tr., Vol. II, at 390, 401, 403). With regard to the sexual conduct on October 8, 2013, the victim provided the following testimony:

[The Victim]: I woke up to him having sex with me and what felt like he ejaculated in me. * * * The next thing I remember is me waking up to him on top of me. * * *

[The Prosecutor]: Okay. So, at some point you know you fell asleep?

[The Victim]: Yes.

[The Prosecutor]: To him on top of you?

[The Victim]: Yes.

[The Prosecutor]: Okay. I need you to be as specific as possible[.] What do you remember as you woke up?

[The Victim]: I remember, he—he—I remember waking up and having cum on—I was very wet and I just remember
58 N.E.3d 595
saying, “You came in me.” He said, “No, it's on my leg.” And I said, “I don't care where it is. This isn't from me.”

[The Prosecutor]: Okay. Could you tell that he had been—that his penis had been inside of your vagina?

[The Victim]: Yes. I didn't have pants on. Yeah, he had sex with me.

(Id. at 401, 403). While, the victim testified on cross-examination and re-direct examination that she did not know for certain whether Stevens penetrated her vagina with his penis, the victim testified that she was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Bentz
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 2017
    ...purposely compelled K.A. to engage in sexual conduct, and (2) whether Bentz did so by force or threat of force. See State v. Stevens , 2016-Ohio-446, 58 N.E.3d 584, ¶ 14.A person acts purposely when it is the person's specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the of......
  • State v. Heiney
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • August 24, 2018
    ..."[p]hysical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing." State v. Stevens , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-14-58, 2016-Ohio-446, 58 N.E.3d 584, ¶ 19, quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1801 (14th Ed.2014) and The American Heritage Dictionary at 1350.{¶ 100} "Compulsion" means "[t]he......
  • State v. Sims
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • September 26, 2022
    ...the victim in her bed in the Good Shepherd Home in the early morning and that he had removed her undergarments. See State v. Stevens , 3d Dist., 2016-Ohio-446, 58 N.E.3d 584, ¶ 27. Likewise, there is evidence in the record that the victim was asleep when the offense began. See id. In additi......
  • State v. Davis
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • May 22, 2017
    ...plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice." State v. Stevens, 58 N.E.3d 584, 2016-Ohio-446, ¶ 55, quoting Smith, 2015-Ohio-2977, at ¶ 63. Underthe plain error standard, "[w]e may reverse only when the record is clear t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT