Youngstown Daily Legal News

Appeals court upholds rape conviction

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 19, 2013

The 2nd District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas when it ruled that Isaiah Smith’s convictions for rape, kidnapping and assault were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The court of appeals also overruled Smith’s argument that the prosecutor’s conduct resulted in an unfair trial.

Smith’s convictions stemmed from events that took place on June 14, 2012.

The victim, referred to as D in the court’s opinion, testified she was celebrating her birthday with some friends.

She admitted that she drank approximately one bottle of wine before 7 p.m. Then D went to another gathering of family and friends where she stated that she smoked crack cocaine twice.

After the gathering, D was walking down a street when a man, later identified as Smith, approached her and asked if she knew where he could find some crack cocaine.

D told Smith that she did and took him to the home of a nearby drug dealer who she identified as J.C.

Smith happened to also be acquainted with J.C. and, after he purchased the drugs, asked D if she would like to come back to his apartment to “have a drink and smoke crack together.”

D agreed to accompany Smith after J.C.’s girlfriend informed her that Smith was “a sweet guy.”

When they arrived at Smith’s apartment, Smith gave D a can of malt liquor and let her smoke some of the crack he had purchased.

D testified that Smith soon became violent and erratic. He informed her that he was “tired of bitches like y’all walking up and down the street.”

Smith then snatched the crack pipe from D and punched her in the face. He continued to resort to fisticuffs as D tried to get up and leave the apartment.

According to D, Smith told her, “We can do this all night. You ain’t going nowhere,” and then ordered her to remove her clothes. Smith then approached D from behind and raped her. As the rape continued, D began feigning an asthma attack, causing Smith to get off of her.

Naked, D got up and ran out of the apartment and pulled the fire alarm in the hallway. She began to knock on neighbors’ doors asking for help.

Eventually, a woman on the first floor opened her door and gave D a white sheet to cover herself. D then walked into the foyer of the apartment building where she laid down on a couch and passed out.

Dayton police officers were dispatched to the apartments on a suspicious circumstance complaint. Upon entering the building, they found D lying on the couch.

The officers testified that she was highly upset and crying. The side of D’s face was red and swollen.

She was transported to a hospital where she was examined and found to have injuries consistent with being anally and vaginally raped. The physical exam also revealed that D had severe bruising and bite marks on her back.

D advised the officers that she had been raped by a man living on the fifth floor of the apartment building where the officers found her. Smith was subsequently arrested and taken into custody.

A jury found Smith guilty of rape, kidnapping, attempted rape and misdemeanor assault. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 11 years in prison and designated a Tier III sex offender.

Upon his direct appeal to the 2nd District, Smith challenged the manifest weight of the evidence but the three-judge appellate panel found no merit to his argument.

“Smith contends that his convictions for rape, kidnapping, attempted rape and assault were against the manifest weight of the evidence because they were all dependent on the testimony of D,” wrote Judge Mary Donovan on behalf of the appellate court. “Specifically, Smith argues that D’s testimony lacked all credibility and shouldn’t be considered for any purpose.”

Upon review, the appellate panel held that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony were matters for the trial court to resolve.

“The jury did not lose its way simply because it chose to believe the testimony of the victim, D, who testified at length regarding Smith punching her in the face and head, forcing her to remain in his apartment after she tried to leave, anally raping her and attempting to vaginally rape her,” wrote Judge Donovan.

Judge Donovan also stated that Smith’s counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine D but that he was unable to undermine her story.

Smith’s first assignment of error was therefore overruled. He proceeded to argue that the state committed reversible misconduct when the prosecutor made several remarks that were improper and prejudicial.

“Indeed, in our advanced system, prosecutors are not only permitted but also encouraged to argue fervently for conviction,” wrote Judge Donovan. “It is improper, however, for an attorney to express his personal belief or opinion as to the credibility of a witness or as to the guilt of the accused.”

In his opening statement to the jury, the prosecutor stated, “At the conclusion of this case ... there will be only but one choice for you to make, and that choice will be clear. That choice will be to find this defendant guilty and hold him accountable and responsible for what he did to (D).”

The court of appeals found that the remarks were not improper but were simply “a summary of that he expected the evidence to establish at the end of the trial.”

It held that the statements were not a mandate to the jury that they were required to find Smith guilty.

Smith also took issue with the state’s closing argument, during which the prosecutor stated, “The true measure of a society is to look at the way that the society treats its weakest, most vulnerable members. I don’t think there is anyone who has sat through this trial that can deny that (D) is one of society’s weakest and most vulnerable members.”

“No one is asking you to like her. No one is asking you to be (D’s) friend. No one is asking you to allow her into your home. The only that that’s being asked of you is to apply the law to the facts in this case.”

Smith contended that the statements improperly established the opinion of the prosecutor regarding “the societal value of the victim.”

He claimed that by making the remarks, the prosecutor “placed himself on a moral high ground, and he took the jury up to the summit with him.”

The appellate panel disagreed when it determined that the prosecutor was merely commenting that D was especially vulnerable to the actions of Smith in light of her lifelong issues with drug addiction.

Consequently, both of Smith’s assignments of error were overruled and the judgment of the Montgomery County court was affirmed.

Presiding Judge Mike Fain and Judge Jeffrey Welbaum joined Judge Donovan to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Smith, 2013-Ohio-5345.

[Back]