The State Of Ohio v. Hatten

• Decision Date: 12 February 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2009 CA 15.,2009 CA 15.
• Parties: The STATE of Ohio, Appellee,v.HATTEN, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

186 Ohio App.3d 286

927 N.E.2d 632

2010 Ohio 499

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee,v.HATTEN, Appellant.

No. 2009 CA 15.

Court of Appeals of Ohio,

Second District, Champaign County.

Decided Feb. 12, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Nick A. Selvaggio, Urbana and Joyce Anderson, for appellee.

Ian N. Friedman, Cleveland and Eric C. Nemecek, for appellant.

FROELICH, Judge.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Justin Hatten appeals from his conviction and sentence for kidnapping and rape. For the following reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court in part and reverse it in part.

I

{¶ 2} Late on the evening of July 3, 2008, A.R. consumed two shots of tequila and one beer before going to a local bar with her roommate, K.R. At the bar, A.R. drank half a pitcher of beer and four more shots of alcohol. Coincidentally, the women's neighbor, Hatten, and two of his friends, C.M. and R.H., were drinking at the same bar. The women thought that they recognized their neighbor, but there is no evidence that Hatten saw the women there.

{¶ 3} The young women returned to their home at about 1:30 a.m. They got something to eat and began watching a movie. About 90 minutes later, C.M. knocked on their door, intending to invite the women to Hatten's home. Changing his mind, he merely asked where Hatten lived. A.R. directed him next door and returned to watching the movie. Minutes later, Hatten came to A.R.'s door to apologize for any inconvenience, and he invited the women to his home to play a video game and have a few drinks. A.R. and K.R. agreed, and they took a case of beer with them to Hatten's home.

{¶ 4} A.R. and K.R. introduced themselves to Hatten, C.M., and R.H. The women soon returned to their home for tequila, vodka, and lemons, which they brought back to Hatten's home. They consumed a shot of alcohol and began playing a video game, during which time A.R. drank another beer. After playing for a while, the women decided to leave. They went to a local store for ice cream before returning home to finish watching the movie that they had started earlier.

{¶ 5} At about 4:00 a.m., Hatten knocked on the door and asked A.R. whether she would like to come back to his home to watch a movie. She agreed. While A.R., Hatten, C.M., and R.H. were watching the movie, A.R. drank another beer. At some point, A.R. decided to leave, so she started walking toward the door. Hatten followed her, and he blocked the door with his arm. He told A.R. that he was lonely and just wanted her to stay and “cuddle” with him. She testified that she reluctantly agreed.

{¶ 6} The two talked and watched the movie. According to A.R., Hatten suddenly stood up, grabbed her arm, and pulled her down the hall to his bedroom. The bedroom door remained open as A.R. and Hatten lay on the bed to “cuddle.” A.R. testified that Hatten then rolled on top of her, straddling her hips, so that she could not get away from him. While in that position, Hatten removed her pants and panties, placed a condom on his penis, and had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. A.R. never yelled for help from either C.M. or R.H. Immediately afterwards, A.R. fled to her own home, leaving her clothes behind.

{¶ 7} At approximately 6:15 a.m., K.R. awoke to the sound of A.R. crying. After hearing what had happened, K.R. contacted her mother, T.R., and they convinced A.R. to go to the hospital. Nurse Jennifer Lutz saw A.R. shortly after 7:00 a.m. She described A.R. as crying steadily, sobbing, and inconsolable. Because A.R. was going to transfer to another hospital to be seen by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (“SANE nurse”), Lutz's exam was very brief. A.R. told Lutz that she had not been drinking. An emergency-room doctor briefly examined A.R., and finding her very upset and difficult to communicate with, he prescribed one milligram of Ativan, in order to help her calm down.

{¶ 8} The record does not reflect how A.R. got to the second hospital, but at approximately 9:30 a.m., A.R. was seen by SANE nurse Karen Sneed. A.R. admitted to having consumed three beers and two shots, but Sneed believed that A.R. appeared to be sober enough to consent to medical treatment. A.R. remained very tearful and sobbing. Sneed observed evidence of blunt-force trauma to A.R.'s vaginal area, which was consistent with the recent occurrence of sexual contact.

{¶ 9} Urbana Police Officer Molton briefly spoke with A.R. at the first hospital before proceeding to Hatten's home with Lieutenant Lingrell, arriving between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. Officer Molton questioned Hatten at his front door. Unbeknownst to Hatten, the conversation was recorded. Hatten agreed with A.R.'s version of events up until the point at which she claimed that he would not let her leave, though he did admit that what she said was “more or less” true.

{¶ 10} Hatten repeatedly admitted that he and A.R. had “fooled around” and “messed around,” but he consistently insisted that things only “went as far as she wanted [them] to go” and that he “did not do anything wrong.” He refused to explain what he meant when he said that they “fooled around” and “messed around,” and he claimed that he could not remember whether they had engaged in sexual intercourse. Hatten refused to allow the officers to search his home. Because he would not allow any officers to wait in his home while a search warrant was secured, Hatten was detained in the rear of a cruiser. Upon searching Hatten's home after the warrant was obtained, Officer Molton found A.R.'s pants and panties on the floor in Hatten's bedroom, near an empty condom wrapper.

{¶ 11} Hatten was indicted on two counts of rape (substantially impaired and forcible), one count each of sexual battery and abduction, and one count of kidnapping with a sexual-motivation specification. He filed a motion to suppress, which the trial court overruled, and the case proceeded to trial.

{¶ 12} Hatten called two witnesses in his defense, C.M. and R.H. C.M. and R.H. described A.R. as being sexually aggressive toward Hatten. They saw her straddling Hatten's lap on the couch, kissing him. At no time did either man overhear any conversation or see any conduct that made them believe that Hatten prevented A.R. from leaving or that she remained in Hatten's home against her will. R.H. testified that he saw A.R. and Hatten walking to the bedroom, holding hands, not long before he and C.M. left.

{¶ 13} At the close of its case, the state dismissed the specification to the kidnapping charge. The jury found Hatten guilty of kidnapping and rape of a substantially impaired victim, but he was acquitted of the three other charges (sexual battery, abduction, and forcible rape). The trial court ordered two concurrent four-year sentences. Hatten appeals.

IIHatten's First Assignment of Error

{¶ 14} “The state of Ohio failed to introduce sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction in violation of appellant's right to due process of law as guaranteed by Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution and [the] Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Hatten's Second Assignment of Error:

{¶ 15} “Appellant's convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence in violation of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.”

{¶ 16} In his first and second assignments of error, Hatten maintains that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence and that they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. He also contends that his convictions were allied offenses of similar import that should have been merged.

{¶ 17} Sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges are separate and legally distinct determinations. State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541. “While the test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the state has met its burden of production at trial, a manifest weight challenge questions whether the state has met its burden of persuasion.” State v. Adelman (Dec. 9, 1998), 9th Dist. No. 18824, 1998 WL 852565, *7.

{¶ 18} A sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument challenges whether the state has presented adequate evidence on each element of the offense to allow the case to go to the jury or to sustain the verdict as a matter of law. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 386, 678 N.E.2d 541. Under a sufficiency analysis, an appellate court does not make any determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses. State v. Goff (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 123, 139, 694 N.E.2d 916, citing State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 39 O.O.2d 366, 227 N.E.2d 212, paragraph one of the syllabus. “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. The 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.” State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶ 19} In contrast, when reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight standard of review, “ ‘[t]he court reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [factfinder] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. The discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.’ ” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 20 OBR 215, 485 N.E.2d 717.

Rape (substantially impaired)

{¶ 20} Hatten was convicted of rape under R.C. 2907.02(A...