FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR-2018-05-1611
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellant.
M. LOWRY, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
J. CARR, PRESIDING JUDGE
Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals from the decision of
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, granting Appellee,
Craig Wilson's, motion to suppress. This Court affirms.
Wilson's eighteen-year-old niece told her high school
counselor that Wilson had engaged in sexual activity with
her. The counselor notified the authorities, and a police
officer came to the school to speak with the counselor and
the niece. As a result of those conversations, the
investigating officer learned that the niece was in special
education classes and was intellectually disabled.
Later that same day, Wilson came to the police station to
speak with the investigating officer. He initially denied
that he had engaged in any type of sexual activity with his
niece. The investigating officer repeatedly noted that the
niece was eighteen, however, and urged Wilson to admit to any
consensual sexual activity that might have occurred. She
repeatedly informed him that an admission to consensual
sexual activity would allow her to close the case and avoid a
drawn-out investigation. She did not comment on the
niece's intellectual disability or how it might affect
her ability to consent. As a result of the investigating
officer's representations, Wilson ultimately made several
A grand jury indicted Wilson on two counts of rape, two
counts of sexual battery, and a single count of gross sexual
imposition. Two of his charges alleged that he forced or
coerced his niece, but his remaining charges were based on
her having lacked the capacity to consent as the result of a
substantial impairment. Wilson filed a motion to suppress,
arguing that his admissions were involuntary and a direct
result of the investigating officer's deceptive tactics.
The court held a hearing on his motion and ultimately agreed
that Wilson's admissions were a product of coercion. The
court granted Wilson's motion to suppress, and the State
immediately appealed from its decision.
The State's appeal is now before us and contains a single
assignment of error for our review.
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE APPELLEE'S MOTION TO
In its sole assignment of error, the State argues that the
trial court erred by granting Wilson's motion to
suppress. The State argues that there was no evidence the
investigating officer used an inherently coercive tactic when
interviewing Wilson. Further, it argues that Wilson's
admissions were voluntary ...