Login | March 29, 2024

Testimony from alleged rape victim tossed after medical records not provided

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News

Published: October 21, 2014

The 4rth District Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court’s decision to exclude testimony from the alleged victim in a man’s rape case.

The Ross County Common Pleas Court imposed a sanction excluding testimony from a girl who claimed to have been raped multiple times by the same man starting when she was just 11 years old.

The court made that decision after the state failed to comply with an order to provide the victim’s medical and psychiatric records.

The state appealed the order and argued that the trial court should have imposed a less restrictive sanction.

The case stemmed from a woman’s allegations that Richard Woods raped her multiple times, starting in July 2003, when she was 11 years old.

Woods pleaded not guilty to three counts of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition. He also submitted a demand for discovery.

The state provided discovery that included records indicating that the victim was diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, was taking psychotropic medication, was a heroin addict and had been hypnotized shortly before memories surfaced of the alleged crimes.

In response, Woods filed a second motion to compel discovery, requesting that the state provide all of the victim’s medical and psychological records.

The trial court considered that motion and found that the records may have provided evidence favorable to Woods and relevant to his guilt or punishment.

However, it found their relevance could not be determined by Woods’ motion and instead ordered the state to provide the records so it could review them.

The state did not argue with that decision.

When the state failed to comply with that order, the trial court held another hearing on the matter.

The state claimed it was struggling to get in contact with the victim and did not believe she lived at the same address because of a domestic dispute with her husband.

It further noted that her husband refused to accept any mail on her behalf.

The state conceded it had not complied with the trial court’s order, but argued it was overbroad.

“Interestingly, the state did not present any evidence concerning the effort or steps it had taken to comply with the trial court’s order to provide the record,” Presiding Judge Peter Abele wrote upon review.

The trial court granted the state another 30 days to comply with the order, but warned that failure to do so would result in the victim’s testimony being excluded.

Nevertheless, the state did fail to provide the records and the trial court prohibited the alleged victim from testifying. The state then appealed that order.

“The state contends that the trial court did not choose the least restrictive sanction available,” Judge Abele stated.

The appellate judges reviewed the matter and found that the state’s noncompliance prevented the trial court from determining if the information would have benefited Woods and his defense.

The state argued that a less restrictive penalty could have been an allowance for broader cross-examination of the alleged victim.

The trial court, however, ruled that was improper because the defense would not have been able to review the information it was to question. The appellate judges agreed.

The three-judge appellate panel maintained that the trial court properly warned the state that there would be a severe penalty if it did not comply with the order.

Its decision to make good on that warning, therefore, was not outside its discretion.

“Were the court to hold otherwise, an order for an in camera inspection to determine whether requested evidence should be disclosed would never be followed. The Supreme Court could not have intended the state to participate in this gamesmanship when it promulgated Crim.R. 16,” Judge Abele wrote.

Finding that the trial court acted properly, Judges William Harsha and Marie Hoover joined Judge Abele in rejecting the state’s appeal.

The case is cited State v. Woods, 2014-Ohio-4429.

Copyright © 2014 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]