State v. Weiss

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Elsass

    105 Ohio App. 3d 277 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 3 times

    Cases following Hensley have focused on whether the corpus delicti is deemed discovered and, hence, the running of the statute of limitations is triggered upon the child-victim's attaining the age of majority. In State v. Weiss (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 379, 645 N.E.2d 98, the victims were aged fifteen and seventeen at the time of the offenses, and they did not report the offenses to a "responsible adult" for approximately ten years. The Guernsey County Court of Appeals stated that the reasoning contained in Hensley, supra, applied to cases where the victims were not of tender years but under the age of eighteen.

  2. State v. Fisher

    2023 Ohio 2741 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)

    Fisher is inviting us to shift responsibility for resisting his sexual predation onto the victim who had no experience of sex until he kissed her and led her into a bedroom, locked the door and initiated a sexual relationship with a child who was under ten years old. We found in State v. Weiss, 96 Ohio App.3d 379, 383, 645 N.E.2d 98, 101 (5th Dist.1994) "it would pervert justice to impose on those whom the Criminal Code seeks to protect the responsibility to know the exact criminal nature of such conduct," and, in this case, we reach a similar conclusion and find that G.W.'s comments regarding her sexual relationship with her father are not conclusive proof that Fisher's did not rely on the force of his parental authority to gain G.W.'s cooperation. After a review, we find the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and that the verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

  3. State v. Fast

    2021 Ohio 2548 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Several appellate districts subsequently determined that the tolling of the statute of limitations adopted in Hensley ceases when the victim reaches the age of majority. See State v. Hughes, 633 N.E.2d 1217, 1219 (12th Dist.1994); State v. McGraw, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 65202, 1994 WL 264401, *4 (June 16, 1994); State v. Weiss, 96 Ohio App.3d 379, 384, 645 N.E.2d 98 (5th Dist.1994); State v. Webber, 101 Ohio App.3d 78, 81, 654 N.E.2d 1351 (9th Dist.1995); State v. Elsass, 105 Ohio App.3d 277, 281, 663 N.E.2d 1019 (10th Dist.1995); State v. Hammons, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-95-3, 1995 WL 737526, *3 (Dec. 14, 1995); State v. Wooldridge, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 17708, 1999 WL 812363, *8 (Oct. 8, 1999). {¶66} Effective March 9, 1999, R.C. 2901.13 was amended to increase the statute of limitations to 20 years for certain offenses, including rape under R.C. 2907.02.

  4. State v. Picard

    2010 Ohio 6358 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times
    Stating that Rule 7(D) does not permit an amendment of the indictment to change the penalty or degree of offense charged so as to alter the identity of the crime

    Appellant therefore argues that because the statute of limitations had expired prior to the amendment of R.C. 2901.13 on March 9, 1999, the 20-year statute of limitations does not apply and prosecution is barred. {¶ 62} In State v. Weiss (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 379, 645 N.E.2d 98, this Court rejected a similar argument. In Weiss, a school teacher was charged with sexual battery for performing fellatio on a seventeen-year-old student.

  5. State v. Wooldridge

    C.A. Case No. 17708. T.C. Case No. 98-CR-2940 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 8, 1999)   Cited 5 times

    The Fifth District agreed with the Twelfth District that the Ohio Supreme Court opinion in Hensley was not controlling where the child victim reaches adulthood before reporting the crime. See, State v. Weiss (1995), 96 Ohio App.3d 379. Judge Gwin wrote the following: While it is true Hensley involved "children of tender years," we believe the reasoning contained therein to be applicable to cases where the victim is less than eighteen years of age.

  6. State v. Huntsman

    Case No. 98-CA-0012 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 7, 1998)   Cited 7 times

    In State v. Hensley (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 136, the Ohio Supreme Court found the corpus delicti of a crime of child abuse or neglect is discovered when a responsible adult, as listed in R.C. 2151.421, has knowledge of the act and the criminal nature of the act. This court has construed the holding in Hensley, to apply to child abuse prosecutions for crimes against children who have not yet obtained the age of eighteen, see State v. Weiss (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 379. Once the victim obtains the age of eighteen and is able to understand the criminal nature of the act, the statute of limitations begins to run. At the time of disclosure, here, four of the victims were over the age of eighteen, and one was twenty-eight years old at the time he disclosed appellant's allegedly criminal conduct to a "responsible adult."