Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Black

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Belmont

June 5, 2017

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
MONTRELL BLACK DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

         Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio Case No. 15 CR 0009

          For Plaintiff-Appellee Attorney Daniel P. Fry Belmont County Prosecutor Attorney J. Flanagan Assistant Prosecutor

          For Defendant-Appellant Attorney R. Miller

          JUDGES: Hon. Mary DeGenaro Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Carol Ann Robb

          OPINION

          DeGENARO, J.

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Montrell Black, appeals the trial court's judgment convicting him of rape of a victim under 13 years old and sentencing him accordingly. Black argues the trial court erred by permitting the State to cross-exam the victim as a hostile witness. Further, he contends his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence as well as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, Black's assignments of error are meritless, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

         Facts and Procedural History

         {¶2} Black was indicted in early 2015 for rape, R.C. 2907.02 (A)(1)(b), a first-degree felony. The charges stemmed from Black having sex with J.L., then 12 years old, at a party on June 16, 2012, which also involved two other minor females, F.L. and H.G., Cordale Williams and an identified third male. As recounted below, the gap in time between the offense and indictment was due to a delayed match for Black as the offender in the national DNA database.

         {¶3} The first of the State's five witnesses was J.L., who was fifteen at the time of trial. On direct examination she testified that she traveled to the Econo Lodge with F.L. and H.G., that they picked up Williams on the way, and upon arriving at the hotel, she smoked marijuana and drank vodka and orange juice. When the prosecutor asked J.L. what happened next, she spontaneously recanted her prior statements made during the investigation about having sex, testifying "I know in this video here I said that I had sex with men there. I didn't. I never had any sexual relationships with any men there."

         {¶4} In response, the prosecutor made reference to J.L.'s interview at the Harmony House Child Advocacy Center, which took place less than 48 hours after the hotel party. The exchange continued:

Q. And you are now telling this jury for the first time that there was no sexual activity that occurred in the motel room?
A. No, sir.
Q. But upon seeing the video cued up, you immediately recognize that that is not what you had told other individuals prior to today's proceedings?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When is it that you had determined that you were going to testify to this jury that you did not have any sexual relationships with anybody inside of the Econo Lodge?
A. I'm not sure. I mean, I just want to tell the truth. I lied. I lied about the whole thing. I did go to the hotel room. I did get ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.