Background
Dylan Joseph Lee Craft was convicted by a Greene County jury of gross sexual imposition, a fourth-degree felony. The State alleged that in June 2023, while living in K.B.’s apartment with his then-girlfriend, Craft touched K.B.’s leg and buttocks while K.B. was asleep and unconscious.
K.B. testified that she learned of the incident months later after Craft’s girlfriend found a video and photographs on Craft’s phone. Although the video was not admitted at trial, photographs showed K.B. asleep in the clothing she described. Craft denied the touching and testified that he and K.B. had previously made a consensual sexual video, but he did not produce that video. The trial court imposed an 18-month prison term.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. It held that Craft’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the jury was entitled to credit K.B.’s testimony over Craft’s denial.
The court concluded that K.B.’s account was not so inconsistent, impeached, or unbelievable as to require reversal. Her testimony was supported by photographs from Craft’s phone depicting her asleep, and the jury could reasonably view Craft’s unproduced claim of a consensual video as unpersuasive. The lack of the alleged video in evidence did not make the jury’s verdict a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Key Takeaways
- A manifest-weight challenge succeeds only in the exceptional case where the evidence weighs heavily against conviction.
- Appellate courts give deference to the jury’s credibility determinations when competing testimony is plausible.
- The absence of a video of the charged conduct did not defeat the conviction where testimony and photographic evidence supported the verdict.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the high bar for overturning a criminal conviction on manifest-weight grounds. Conflicting accounts alone do not justify reversal when the jury could reasonably credit the State’s witness and the record contains supporting circumstantial evidence.