Background
A Cuyahoga County jury acquitted Deaarron King of kidnapping but convicted him of attempted rape and gross sexual imposition arising from an incident at a convenience store where the 22-year-old victim worked alone. The trial court imposed two years of community control, including six months at a community-based correctional facility.
The victim testified that she and King had dated and previously had consensual sex in high school, and that they still sometimes hugged and kissed. On June 28, 2025, however, after she entered a restroom stall at King’s request, King pulled her inside, locked the door, touched her breasts and buttocks, pulled down her pants, and attempted sexual penetration after she said no and told him to stop. She testified that she crouched to prevent penetration and pushed away after King pushed her head toward his exposed penis. She promptly texted friends and family, reported the assault to police, and underwent a sexual-assault examination.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed. It held that the victim’s testimony, viewed in the state’s favor, supplied sufficient evidence that King attempted sexual conduct and committed sexual contact by force or threat of force. Her testimony that she repeatedly said no and told King to stop, while he restrained her, pulled down her pants, attempted penetration, and pushed her head toward his exposed penis, supported both convictions.
The court also rejected King’s manifest-weight challenge. His reliance on the parties’ prior sexual relationship, flirtation, and the victim’s statement that it was “not the time or place” did not make her refusal ambiguous. The court concluded that the record contained no materially contradictory, impeached, or fantastical testimony that would justify overriding the jury’s credibility determinations.
Key Takeaways
- A prior sexual relationship or consensual flirting does not negate evidence of a later refusal and forcible sexual conduct.
- Victim testimony can independently provide sufficient evidence of attempted rape and gross sexual imposition.
- An appellate court will disturb a verdict on manifest-weight review only in the exceptional case where the jury clearly lost its way.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that consent must be assessed in the circumstances of the charged encounter, not inferred from past intimacy. It also applies Ohio’s recently articulated manifest-weight framework by emphasizing deference to the jury absent meaningful conflicting or patently unbelievable evidence.