Background
Eleven-year-old alleged victim was supervising her younger brother in a church basement while adults prepared upstairs for a Sunday service and dinner. She testified that 23-year-old Bryce Rishel approached her from behind, gave her a “bear hug,” moved his hands from her chest area toward her thighs and pubic area, and then lifted her by placing his hands beneath her groin as she screamed and pushed him away.
Rishel told a police officer that the encounter was, at most, an awkward “side hug” and denied placing his hands near the child’s thighs or groin, although he acknowledged finding her “pretty.” At trial, he sought to introduce expert testimony concerning autism-related social awkwardness and difficulty understanding social cues, but the trial court excluded it as an impermissible diminished-capacity defense. A jury convicted him of misdemeanor sexual imposition.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It declined to overturn the exclusion of the proposed expert testimony because Rishel had not placed an expert report or proffer of the anticipated testimony in the record. Without a record showing what the expert would have said, the appellate court could not evaluate the trial court’s ruling, and the issue was not preserved for appellate review.
The court also held that the conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The alleged victim’s account of touching to her buttocks, thighs, and vaginal area, the isolated setting, Rishel’s continuation of the contact despite her resistance, and other direct and circumstantial evidence permitted the jury to infer the sexual purpose required by Ohio’s sexual-imposition statute. The jury was entitled to credit her testimony and reject Rishel’s characterization of the incident. Because the court identified no multiple trial errors, it also rejected his cumulative-error claim.
Key Takeaways
- A party challenging the exclusion of expert testimony must preserve the substance of that testimony through a proffer or other record evidence unless it is otherwise apparent from the record.
- Sexual purpose may be established through circumstantial evidence, including the nature and location of the touching, the surrounding circumstances, and the defendant’s conduct.
- A jury’s credibility determinations will receive substantial deference on manifest-weight review when the record provides a rational basis for the verdict.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an appellate court cannot review excluded expert evidence in the abstract: counsel must create a record showing the expert’s proposed opinions, methodology, and relevance. Failure to do so may prevent review regardless of the asserted basis for admission.
The opinion also confirms that Ohio prosecutors need not present direct testimony about a defendant’s internal sexual purpose. Jurors may infer that purpose from the alleged contact and its context, and a victim’s credited testimony can support both the legal sufficiency and factual weight of a conviction.