Opinion
21AP0016
07-31-2023
STATE OF OHIO Appellee v. PAUL HAWKINS Appellant
JOHN E. JOHNSON, JR., Attorney at Law, for Appellant. ANGELA WYPASEK, Prosecuting Attorney, and FREELAND OLIVERIO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. 2019 CR-B 000978
JOHN E. JOHNSON, JR., Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ANGELA WYPASEK, Prosecuting Attorney, and FREELAND OLIVERIO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
DONNA J. CARR, JUDGE.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Paul D. Hawkins appeals the judgment of the Wayne County Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In July 2019, a complaint was filed charging Hawkins with two counts of sexual imposition, one in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A)(4), and one in violation of RC. 2907.06(A)(1). The offenses were alleged to have occurred on or about October 1, 2015, to October 18, 2015. The victim was 14 at the time of the offenses.
{¶3} The matter ultimately proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Hawkins guilty of the offenses and he was subsequently sentenced.
{¶4} Hawkins has appealed, raising two assignments of error for our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING PAUL HAWKINS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL WHEN THE STATE'S ONLY CORROBORATION WITNESS CONTRADICTED THE ACCUSER'S VERSION OF EVENTS.
{¶5} Hawkins argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal as the State failed to present sufficient evidence of corroboration.
{¶6} R.C. 2907.06(A) provides, in relevant part, that:
No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the spouse of the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual contact with the offender; or cause two or more other persons to have sexual contact when any of the following applies:
(1) The offender knows that the sexual contact is offensive to the other person, or one of the other persons, or is reckless in that regard.
* * *
(4) The other person, or one of the other persons, is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of such person, and the offender is at least eighteen years of age and four or more years older than such other person.
{¶7} R.C. 2907.06(B) indicates that "[n]o person shall be convicted of a violation of this section solely upon the victim's testimony unsupported by other evidence." This "corroboration requirement of R.C. 2907.06(B) is a threshold inquiry of legal sufficiency to be determined by the trial judge, not a question of proof, which is the province of the factfinder." State v. Economo, 76 Ohio St.3d 56, 60 (1996). Thus, in reviewing whether sufficient evidence of corroboration was presented, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. State v. Roy, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 13CA010404, 2014-Ohio-5186, ¶ 52. In considering the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court is not charged with resolving evidentiary conflicts nor assessing the credibility of witnesses. See State v. Oliver, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29535, 2021-Ohio-4153, ¶ 20. The "corroboration requirement does not mandate proof of the facts which are the very substance of the crime charged * * *." Economo at 59-60. "The corroborating evidence necessary to satisfy R.C. 2907.06(B) need not be independently sufficient to convict the accused, and it need not go to every essential element of the crime charged. Slight circumstances or evidence which tends to support the victim's testimony is satisfactory." Id. at 60. This Court has noted that "a defendant's own statements, his access to the victim, and the victim's reasonably prompt reporting of the assault all may serve as corroborative evidence." State v. Betts, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 29575, 29576, 29577, 2020-Ohio-4800, ¶ 9, abrogated on other grounds, State v. Haynes, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4473. "Once the threshold of sufficient corroborative evidence [is] crossed, it [is] up to the factfinder to determine whether there [is] proof beyond a reasonable doubt to support the sexual imposition charges." Economo at 60.
{¶8} In support of its case, the State presented the following testimony. At trial, the victim testified that, at the time of the events at issue, she was 14 years old and a freshman in high school. In the fall of 2015, the victim was involved in student government and she and other classmates were responsible for decorating a homecoming float for the parade. Homecoming was in October. Because she and her classmates could not drive to pick up the necessary supplies, they needed a parent to do so.
{¶9} That day, Hawkins was available to drive them. The victim knew Hawkins because his son was a classmate of the victim's. According to the victim, the car was a sportier silver vehicle with automatic transmission. It had separate seats in the front and a bench seat in the back. Hawkins picked the victim up at her house. She was the last person to be picked up. The victim was in the front passenger seat, and classmates H.J., L.N., and Hawkins' son were in the back. The victim indicated that Hawkins told them as they were going to get in the car to "let the pretty girl sit up front," referring to the victim. The victim said the comment caught her off guard and it was awkward, but she nonetheless sat in the front. As they were driving, Hawkins reached over, grabbed the victim's left hand and held it. The victim described it as like when couples hold hands. That made the victim very uncomfortable but she did not know what to do.
{¶10} The victim testified that, at one of the stops, H.J. told her not to sit up front, as he noticed something was happening. However, Hawkins again said "let the pretty girl sit up front[,]" and so the victim again sat in the front passenger seat. In order to prevent Hawkins from holding her hand, the victim held her phone in both hands and moved her legs towards the door. Hawkins grabbed the phone and threw it to the floorboard and then started holding her hand again. Hawkins also mentioned how pretty the victim was on more than one occasion.
{¶11} After they got the supplies, Hawkins drove them to S.H.'s house. S.H. was also a student. Her house was where the trailer for the parade was stored. They unloaded the supplies and worked on the float for a couple hours. S.H. and S.H.'s mother were mostly inside the house. Later in the evening, Hawkins' wife arrived, as did L.N.'s mother.
{¶12} When they were ready to leave, Hawkins' wife and son went home in a white Jeep. Hawkins then drove the victim, H.J., and L.N. back to Hawkins' house to put away some of the materials. The victim testified that Hawkins then took the white Jeep to drive the victim, H.J., and L.N. home. Hawkins dropped off H.J. first and then L.N.
{¶13} After L.N. was dropped off, Hawkins drove a little bit, put the vehicle in park, and then asked the victim if she wanted to drive. The victim was excited to be able to drive and so agreed to drive the vehicle. Hawkins told her where to go and where to turn. As the victim was driving, Hawkins reached out and grabbed her knee. Hawkins moved his hand up the victim's leg and eventually started touching the victim's vagina and pushing on it over her clothes. The victim indicated that Hawkins was breathing heavily while he was touching her. The victim then yelled stop and Hawkins jumped and stopped. The victim described being scared. Hawkins then told her to turn into a gravel area. Hawkins' hand was still on her thigh. As the victim put the car in park, another car pulled up behind them with the headlights shining in. Hawkins started to panic, moved his hand away, and told the victim to just sit there and not say anything. Seconds later, the other car left.
{¶14} Hawkins then told the victim that they needed to get out of there and was yelling at her to hurry up and go. It was completely silent as they headed towards the victim's house. Before they got to the victim's house, Hawkins had the victim stop the car so that he would be driving. Hawkins then dropped the victim off at home. Hawkins told the victim not to tell anyone. That evening H.J. texted her to ask if she was okay and she just responded in the affirmative.
{¶15} The victim did not initially tell anyone about what had happened because she "felt dirty and ashamed and [] thought [she] would be the one getting in trouble." However, in January or February of 2016, the victim did end up disclosing to her mother. The victim testified that she and her mother were watching TV when her mother randomly asked her if anyone had ever touched her inappropriately. The victim quickly said no but then her mother asked again. The victim started crying and told her mother what happened. The victim's mother wanted to go to the police, but the victim begged her not to tell anyone because the victim was just starting high school and did not want anyone to know. The victim's mother agreed to honor the victim's wishes but told the victim that whenever she was ready to go to the police the victim's mother would support the victim. The victim's mother testified at trial and confirmed the details about the victim's disclosure.
{¶16} During the victim's senior year of high school, the victim was at church and there was a sermon about forgiveness. After the service, there were small group discussions where the victim shared part of the incident and indicated that she wanted to forgive. Unbeknownst to her, a mandatory reporter heard what she said and the criminal investigation into Hawkins began. The victim explained that, if she had known that a criminal investigation would have ensued, she would not have shared what happened.
{¶17} Detective Michael Burkey with the Wayne County Sheriffs Office testified concerning the criminal investigation. Detective Burkey responded to the Child Advocacy Center of Wayne County where a forensic interview of the victim was conducted. That interview was recorded and later played for the jury. The video was also admitted as evidence.
{¶18} In the video, the victim discussed in great detail the incident and background information about it. The victim described the vehicle as a grey car with a blue stripe and black interior. She believed that L.N. sat behind her, Hawkins' son was in the middle, and H.J. was behind Hawkins. She also noted that Hawkins had a white Jeep.
{¶19} Following the interview, Detective Burkey then tried to make contact with witnesses, including H.J. H.J. stated that, while he was in the vehicle, he observed some conduct he thought was questionable. However, H.J. confirmed he was not present when the alleged criminal offense took place.
{¶20} Detective Burkey tried to then make contact with Hawkins. Detective Burkey learned that Hawkins owned a 2007 dark blue Saturn Ion, and believed that to be the vehicle at issue based upon his investigation thus far. Detective Burkey went to Hawkins' home twice and eventually got ahold of Hawkins' wife on the phone. Hawkins' wife indicated that she would let Hawkins know that Detective Burkey needed to speak with Hawkins.
{¶21} When Detective Burkey received no call, he went to Hawkins' place of work, which was a school. Detective Burkey described Hawkins as nervous, which Detective Burkey characterized as understandable. When asked about the allegations, Hawkins denied them. Hawkins asserted that he was never at the gathering at S.H.'s residence, he was not involved in helping with a float, and that he never had children in his car as it was a policy that he was not to transport students or children.
{¶22} H.J. also testified. He indicated that he was on the homecoming committee with the victim and other classmates and confirmed that Hawkins drove them around to get supplies in the fall of 2015. H.J. described Hawkins' vehicle as a darker color SUV. H.J. testified that L.N., the victim, and H.J. met at Hawkins' house. H.J. recalled that when he went to get into the front passenger seat, Hawkins said something along the lines of "no let the pretty girl sit up front[.]" It appeared to be a reference to the victim, who did end up sitting up front. H.J. also confirmed that the people in the car were Hawkins, the victim, H.J., Hawkins' son, and L.N. However, while the victim testified that H.J. was sitting behind her, H.J. testified that he was sitting behind Hawkins. H.J. testified that, during the drive, he observed Hawkins rest his hand on the victim's mid to upper thigh and "performed some like stroking motions with his hand and squeezing." H.J. found this concerning. However, the victim denied that Hawkins was caressing her thigh while H.J. was in the car. At one of the stops, H.J. asked the victim if everything was okay and she just kind of brushed it off. Nonetheless, the victim looked uncomfortable during the drive. She looked embarrassed and did not want to talk about it. She was not as bubbly as she normally was.
{¶23} H.J. corroborated that, after they obtained supplies, they drove to S.H.'s house. After they finished there, they went to Hawkins' house. H.J. indicated that L.N. was then picked up at Hawkins' house. Because he was concerned for the victim, H.J. suggested that Hawkins take the victim home first but H.J. was told it was out of the way to do that. Thus, H.J. was dropped off before the victim.
{¶24} H.J. confirmed that he wrote a statement for the police in 2019. He acknowledged that the statement did not mention stopping at S.H.'s house, that Hawkins took him home, or that he spoke to the victim about a year before he made the statement about what happened that night.
{¶25} S.H. testified as well and verified that during freshman year the float for homecoming was kept in her garage because they had extra space. S.H. remembered classmates coming over to her house to work on the float. She saw Hawkins there, L.N.'s mom, L.N., the victim, H.J., and Hawkins' son, among others. S.H. did some painting for the float and then went back inside while the others were still working. She did not see anyone leave.
{¶26} On appeal, Hawkins first argues that the victim's disclosure was not recent in time enough to the incident to be considered as corroboration. Hawkins then argues that the remaining testimony the State presented contradicts instead of supports the victim's testimony and therefore, the State failed to present sufficient corroborating evidence as required by R.C. 2907.06(B). Hawkins points out that H.J. testified that he and his classmates arrived at Hawkins' house whereas the victim testified that she was picked up at her house. Hawkins notes that H.J. described the vehicle as a dark-colored SUV whereas the victim indicated in her interview it was grey with a blue stripe and testified that it was silver. At trial, the victim also testified that the car that she ended up driving was a white Jeep. Another conflict Hawkins lists is that H.J. testified that Hawkins put his hand on the victim's thigh and stroked or squeezed it, whereas the victim only indicated that Hawkins' held her hand during that time. Further, Hawkins notes that H.J. testified that Hawkins drove only himself and the victim home, whereas the victim testified that Hawkins drove L.N. home as well.
{¶27} While Hawkins has pointed out several areas in which H.J.'s testimony did differ from the victim's, we cannot say that these discrepancies negate the evidence the State did present. H.J. confirmed that Hawkins in fact drove them around to get supplies for the float and stopped at S.H.'s house. S.H. herself provided testimony corroborating that Hawkins was at her house that day. These facts were denied by Hawkins. In addition, H.J., like the victim, testified that Hawkins wanted the "pretty girl[,]" i.e. the victim, to sit up front next to Hawkins. H.J. and the victim both found this comment unsettling. H.J. also observed Hawkins touching the victim in the car in a way that H.J. found inappropriate, and he also thought the victim found inappropriate. H.J.'s testimony evidenced that he felt something uncomfortable was occurring between Hawkins and the victim.
{¶28} Thus, even discounting the victim's disclosures to others, we cannot say that Hawkins has demonstrated that the State failed to present sufficient corroborative evidence of the character anticipated by R.C. 2907.06(B). We again note that credibility and conflicts in the evidence are not issues relevant to a sufficiency review. See Oliver, 2021-Ohio-4153, at ¶ 20. Here, we conclude that the State more than met its burden of presenting "[s]light circumstances or evidence which tend[ed] to support the victim's testimony * * *." Economo, 76 Ohio St.3d at 60. "Once the threshold of sufficient corroborative evidence [is] crossed, it [is] up to the factfinder to determine whether there [is] proof beyond a reasonable doubt to support the sexual imposition charges." Id.
{¶29} Hawkins' first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE JURY'S VERDICTS FINDING PAUL HAWKINS GUILTY WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶30} Hawkins argues in his second assignment of error that the verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Essentially, Hawkins argues that the evidence presented by the defense was more credible than that presented by the State.
In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986).
{¶31} "When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a 'thirteenth juror' and disagrees with the fact[-]finder's resolution of the conflicting testimony." State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997), quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982). An appellate court should exercise the power to reverse a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence only in exceptional cases. Otten at 340. "[W]e are mindful that the [trier of fact] is free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of each witness." (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) State v. Gannon, 9th Dist. Medina No. 19CA0053-M, 2020-Ohio-3075, ¶ 20. "This Court will not overturn a conviction on a manifest weight challenge only because the [trier of fact] found the testimony of certain witnesses to be credible." Id.
{¶32} In addition to the evidence discussed above, the jury was presented with additional testimony by Detective Burkey, and testimony from Hawkins' wife, and Hawkins. The additional testimony from Detective Burkey clarified that Detective Burkey did not believe that Hawkins was attempting to avoid speaking with Detective Burkey.
{¶33} Hawkins' wife testified that Hawkins was out of state throughout September and did not return until early October. Hawkins' wife nonetheless testified that in October 2015, she, their son, and Hawkins did go over to help with the homecoming float. However, she testified that she drove the white Jeep over there, and Hawkins and their son went there with her. Hawkins' wife testified that she remembered going there because she recalled their son's classmates being very dismissive of him and so they stayed a while and left. Hawkins' wife testified that they had a general rule that she would drive girls, Hawkins would drive boys, or they would go together.
{¶34} Hawkins' wife averred that she had a white Jeep and Hawkins had a dark blue Saturn. Pictures of the blue Saturn were shown to Hawkins' wife. She testified that it was not grey or silver and did not have a stripe. Further, she testified that the vehicle only had four seats - two bucket seats in the front, and two in the back. It was a manual transmission.
{¶35} Hawkins testified in his defense. He informed the jury that he went back to school to become a special education teacher after their son was diagnosed with autism. Hawkins described being terrified when the police came to his workplace because, in his experience, when law enforcement came into a school and the staff was involved it usually resulted in the person being put on leave or being dismissed. Hawkins did not know police would be at his school. He indicated that he had left messages for the detective, and would sometimes get messages from him, but they ended up missing each other. Hawkins denied trying to avoid Detective Burkey.
{¶36} Hawkins further denied driving the children at all, he denied allowing the victim to drive his cars, he denied owning the types of cars that the victim described, and he denied holding hands with the victim or touching her.
{¶37} In his argument, Hawkins points to conflicts in H.J.'s testimony and his statement to police and conflicts between the victim's testimony and her video interview. Many of the conflicts involve the vehicle involved. It is true the defense presented evidence that the vehicle Hawkins owned was a dark blue Saturn that only had four seats, despite the fact that both H.J. and the victim indicated that five people were in the vehicle. The vehicle also did not match the victim's description and was not an SUV like H.J. testified. Moreover, at trial, the victim testified that the criminal conduct occurred in the white Jeep and not the other vehicle, whereas she did not specifically delineate the vehicle involved in the criminal conduct during her video interview. Given the content of her video interview, it would not be unreasonable for a viewer to presume that the conduct occurred in the other vehicle.
{¶38} Nonetheless, we cannot say that Hawkins has demonstrated that the jury lost its way in determining credibility or resolving conflicts in the evidence. The jury could have reasonably found important aspects of the victim's testimony to be credible. There was evidence that the victim did not even want the matter to be brought to the police, which is supported not only by the victim's and her mother's testimony, there was also evidence presented that the matter only became a criminal investigation after the victim disclosed the incident to a church group and the group had a mandatory reporter in it. Accordingly, there was a lack of evidence that the victim had an ulterior motive in accusing Hawkins of the crimes. Moreover, the jury was free to find the victim's testimony about Hawkins inappropriately touching her credible even if the jury concluded that the victim remembered some of the details about the vehicle incorrectly. See Gannon, 2020-Ohio-3075, at ¶ 20. The jury was aware of the amount of time that passed between the time of the criminal conduct and the time of the investigation and trial. In addition, there was testimony before the jury tending to support that Hawkins was behaving in an inappropriate way towards the victim even before he was alone with her.
{¶39} Overall, we cannot say that Hawkins has demonstrated that the verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Hawkins' second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶40} Hawkins' assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Wayne County Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Wayne County Municipal Court, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
SUTTON, P. J. STEVENSON, J. CONCUR.