State v. Young
| Citation | 176 N.E.3d 1074 |
| Decision Date | 26 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. CA2020-04-052,CA2020-04-052 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. Dustin YOUNG, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Stephen M. Wagner, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Repper-Pagan Law, Ltd., and Christopher J. Pagan and Jacob D. Long, Fairfield, for appellant.
{¶1} Appellant, Dustin Young, appeals from his convictions in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas for gross sexual imposition and abduction. Young also appeals from the trial court's denial of his two motions for new trial. For the reasons set forth below we affirm the denial of Young's motions for new trial and uphold his convictions.
{¶2} This court previously set forth the relevant facts relating to Young's convictions in State v. Young , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-03-047, 2019-Ohio-912, 2019 WL 1254197, ¶ 2-22, and they are again set forth herein. On April 26, 2017, Young, a police officer employed by a public university's police department, was indicted on one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree (count one); one count of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(4), a felony of the second degree (count two); and two counts of abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2), felonies of the third degree (counts three and four). The charges arose out of three separate incidents occurring during the fall of 2016. Counts one and two related to an incident in which it was alleged that Young had sexual contact by means of force or the threat of force with K.K., a female coworker employed as an emergency dispatcher. Young used his arm to hook K.K. between her legs, pull her down onto his lap, and, while holding K.K. on his lap, rubbed his arm on her vagina and grabbed one of her breasts with his hand for the purpose of sexual arousal and gratification. Count three related to a second incident, in which it was alleged that Young abducted K.K. while the two were at work. Young grabbed K.K. and pushed her back against lockers, thereby placing K.K. in fear. Finally, with respect to count four, on or about November 14 or 15, 2016, Young was alleged to have abducted K.K. a second time at work. Young grabbed K.K. in a manner that caused her to hit her head on a metal bookcase before pushing her back and pinning her against some lockers, thereby placing her in fear.
{¶3} Young pled not guilty to the charges and, in October 2017, a three-day bench trial was held. At trial, K.K. testified she and Young began working together more than five years ago. The two had exchanged their private cellphone numbers so that personal and job-related text messages could be exchanged. K.K. explained that she and Young had become friends but, at some point in time, the nature of their relationship changed. According to K.K., it "got to the point where [Young] wanted more than I did." Young started sending K.K. "inappropriate" text messages. K.K. did not approach her superiors at work because she felt she could handle things. However, sometime after May 2016, Young became more aggressive. On one occasion, Young grabbed K.K.’s buttocks when she walked by him at work.
{¶4} Regarding counts one and two, K.K. testified that on one evening in the fall of 2016, while in the communications center at work, Young grabbed her and pulled her onto his lap. According to K.K., she went to pick up papers from a printer and Young "put his right arm between [her] legs, to where his hand was on the back of [her] butt and his arm was up between [her] legs." Young pulled her to the chair he was sitting on and then, using his left hand, grabbed her shoulder to spin her around before pulling her down onto his lap. K.K. stated that Young's arm between her legs was moving and his forearm rubbed her genitalia in both a back-and-forth and side-to-side motion. His hand that was over her shoulder was touching her breast and he was biting at and trying to kiss the back of her neck. Young asked K.K., "When are you going to let me do this to you outside of work?" K.K. told Young to "let go" before pushing off of him and going back to her own workstation.
{¶5} A few weeks later, the incident relating to count three occurred. K.K. testified she was entering the communications room after going to the restroom when Young, who was standing near some lockers, grabbed her by her shoulders and upper arms, spun her around, and pushed her up against the lockers. K.K. testified Young tried to kiss her and again asked her when she was going to allow him to do these things to her outside of work. Young used his body weight to keep her against the lockers, and K.K. stated she felt "trapped," "scared," and "mad."
{¶6} K.K. then testified about the incident relating to count four, which occurred while she was working third shift on November 14, 2016. K.K. testified that as she walked into the communications center after going to the breakroom, Young grabbed her, causing her head to hit a metal bookshelf. Young then spun her around, pushed her up against the lockers, and pinned her there using his body weight and holding onto her arms. Young told K.K., "I know you like to be manhandled," and he again asked her when she was going to let him do this to her outside of work. K.K. testified she was "really scared" during this event, as she "didn't know if it was ever going to stop or how bad it might get."
{¶7} K.K. explained that no one else was present when the incidents described above occurred and she did not immediately report Young's conduct. Eventually, K.K. told her superior about the incidents and she provided him with a written statement on November 22, 2016.
{¶8} K.K. also gave a statement to two city of Hamilton police detectives on November 22, 2016. On cross-examination, K.K. acknowledged that during her interview Detective Jon Richardson and Detective Mark Nichols asked her whether Young had ever touched her genitalia or breasts, and she responded "no." However, K.K. explained that she believed the detectives’ question was asked to find out if there were other incidents in addition to those she had already disclosed to the officers. K.K. further acknowledged that she told the detectives that Young "never touched [her] inappropriately sexually." She also admitted that notes describing the offenses to the university's "OEEL" office did not indicate Young touched her breasts or that when Young's forearm was between her legs, he was moving it to rub against her genitalia. Finally, on cross-examination, K.K. acknowledged that on October 29, 2016, she went to a college hockey game and stood next to Young for the duration of the game. Young had purchased a hockey shirt for her to wear but she denied wearing it to the game.
{¶9} K.K. also testified about the text messages she received from Young. Although Young had sent her a number of text messages on her personal cell phone, K.K. had not saved the messages. Rather, she had deleted the messages from Young. However, she provided her cell phone to law enforcement and they were able to recover some of the text messages she and Young had exchanged from April 2016 through November 2016. In the texts sent by Young, he frequently called K.K. "baby" and asked how her day was going. On October 24, 2016, Young sent K.K. a message stating Then, on November 5, 2016, the following text messages were exchanged:1
{¶10} Detective Richardson testified about his investigation of K.K.’s claims. Richardson noted that Young was much larger in stature than K.K. He approximated that Young was 6’ 2" tall and weighed around 250 pounds while K.K. was only "5-ish" feet tall and weighed between 120 and 130 pounds.
{¶11} Richardson explained that Young was interviewed on November 28, 2016. The interview was recorded, and the recording was played at trial. During the interview, Young admitted he had a "friendship" with K.K. but denied that any sexual contact between the two of them had occurred. Young acknowledged that both he and K.K. sent inappropriate and flirtatious texts, including K.K. sending him photographs of herself in her underwear and bra, but he was unable to produce the text messages or photographs as he had deleted them and had recently gotten a new phone.
{¶12} Richardson was cross-examined about his November 22, 2016 interview of K.K. Richardson testified that K.K. was specifically asked whether Young had ever touched her breasts or vagina, and K.K. stated that Young never did anything physically inappropriate with her.
{¶13} Detective Walter Schneider, a digital forensic examiner, testified that he specializes in the recovery of data and extraction of evidence from computer and cellphone devices. On December 23, 2016, using a "Cellebrite" program, Schneider was able to conduct an advanced logical extraction of deleted data from K.K.’s cellphone. Schneider recovered some deleted text messages sent between Young and K.K. However, as Schneider explained, not all deleted material on K.K.’s phone could be recovered as "[s]ome things [were] overwritten" by new data after being deleted. Schneider stated he was not able to recover any data from Snapchat.
{¶14} Following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jury
...available, or he may point out the deficiencies in the state's investigation at trial." Farris at ¶ 20.(Emphasis added.) State v. Young , 2021-Ohio-2541, 176 N.E.3d 1074, ¶ 103 (12th Dist.). To the extent that the state does have a duty to affirmatively gather exculpatory evidence, that dut......
-
State v. Jury
... ... defendant may either investigate the charge and collect the ... evidence himself, if such evidence is available, or he may ... point out the deficiencies in the state's investigation ... at trial." Farris at ¶ 20 ... (Emphasis ... added.) State v. Young, 2021-Ohio-2541, 176 N.E.3d ... 1074, ¶ 103 (12th Dist.). To the extent that the state ... does have a duty to affirmatively gather exculpatory ... evidence, that duty only extends to "'any favorable ... evidence known to the others acting on the ... government's behalf in the case .'" ... ...
- State v. Oliver
-
State v. Harrison
...Evidence admitted under Evid.R. 613(B) is for the "purpose of attacking the credibility of the witness." State v. Young, 2021-Ohio-2541, 176 N.E.3d 1074, ¶ 56 (12th Dist.). quoting State v. Perkins, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2005-01-002, 2005-Ohio-6557, ¶ 16. Prior inconsistent statements ma......