State v. Piatt

153 N.E.3d 573

2020 Ohio 1177

STATE of Ohio, Appellee

v.Kyle PIATT, Appellant

No. 19AP0023

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Wayne County.

Dated: March 30, 2020

ERIC E. WILLISON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and ANDREA D. UHLER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

SCHAFER, Judge,

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Kyle Piatt, appeals from his conviction in the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} Piatt and A.M. share one child together and had an on again/off again relationship for years before the events herein transpired. Their relationship was fraught with turmoil and, at times, erupted into physical violence. A.M. would occasionally strike Piatt and he, in turn, would hit, choke, or otherwise use force against her. He also would frequently subject her to mentally abusive behavior. While A.M. recognized that their relationship was unhealthy, she nonetheless maintained contact with Piatt. She indicated that she did so because she loved him, but also because he would threaten suicide or otherwise plead for help when she tried to end things between them.

{¶3} At the beginning of 2018, while experiencing a break in their relationship, Piatt and A.M. independently sought court intervention. Piatt named A.M. and their son in a paternity suit to establish his parental rights. Meanwhile, A.M. filed for a domestic violence civil protection order ("CPO") against Piatt. The CPO issued on February 1, 2018, but, even after its issuance, Piatt and A.M. routinely contacted one another. They met twice on May 10th, and their second encounter that day is the subject of the instant appeal.

{¶4} A.M. was driving nearby Piatt's residence on the afternoon of May 10th when she realized that he was tailgating her. He followed her until she drove to his residence, and, once she stopped, Piatt removed their son from her car. Piatt carried their son inside a recreational vehicle ("RV") he kept parked in the driveway. After A.M. followed him inside, the two had vaginal intercourse. According to A.M., she repeatedly tried to reject Piatt's advances, but he ignored her protests. According to Piatt, the sex was consensual. A.M. left Piatt's residence with their son shortly thereafter, and, over the next few days, the two exchanged messages on their cell phones. On the sixth day, A.M. visited the police station and reported that Piatt had engaged in unwanted sexual intercourse with her.

{¶5} As a result of the foregoing incident, a grand jury indicted Piatt on one count of sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(1). The matter proceeded to trial, and a jury found him guilty. The trial court then sentenced him to five years in prison and classified him as a tier III sexual offender.

{¶6} Piatt now appeals from his conviction and raises ten assignments of error for our review. To facilitate our review, we rearrange and consolidate several of the assignments of error.

II.Assignment of Error V

The trial court erred when it found Appellant guilty without a finding of actus reus.

Assignment of Error VII

Insufficient evidence that Appellant acted knowingly. (Sic.)

{¶7} In his fifth and seventh assignments of error, Piatt argues that his conviction is based on insufficient evidence because the State failed to prove the actus reus and mens rea elements of his offense. We disagree.

{¶8} A sufficiency challenge of a criminal conviction presents a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). "The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. Although we conduct de novo review when considering a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, "we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor assess the credibility of witnesses, as both are functions reserved for the trier of fact." State v. Jones , 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120570 and C-120571, 2013-Ohio-4775, 2013 WL 5864591, ¶ 33.

{¶9} A person shall not engage in sexual conduct with another person who is not his spouse when he "knowingly coerces the other person to submit by any means that would prevent resistance by a person of ordinary resolution." R.C. 2907.03(A)(1). "A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when [he] is aware that [his] conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when [he] is aware that such circumstances probably exist." R.C. 2901.22(B). " ‘Coercion means to compel by pressure, threat, force or threat of force.’ " State v. Walker , 9th Dist. Wayne No. 10CA0011, 2011-Ohio-517, 2011 WL 378797, ¶ 6, quoting In re Jordan , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 01CA007804, 2001 WL 1044080, *1 (Sept. 12, 2001).

{¶10} A.M. testified that she and Piatt had a volatile relationship. The two would argue and, at times, each would lash out physically. She described Piatt as controlling, manipulative, and mentally abusive, but acknowledged that she struggled to stay away from him. She indicated that her love for him made ending things difficult for her, as did the fact that he would threaten to hurt himself if she left him or took their son away. A.M. testified that she secured a CPO against Piatt in early 2018 because he was making her fear for her life. Additionally, she described several incidents during which he had harmed her. During one incident, when A.M. was several months pregnant, she became angry with Piatt and struck him several times, bloodying his face. She testified that Piatt threatened to hurt her if she did not leave his house, but she ignored his threats and attempted to walk up the stairs to secure her belongings. Piatt then swept her off her feet and choked her on the floor while she struggled. According to A.M., Piatt released her right before she blacked out, but she never forgot the look on his face as he choked her. She described it as "one of the scariest looks [she had] ever seen" and agreed that the look was burned into her memory.

{¶11} On the day in question, A.M. agreed to meet with Piatt so that he could see their son. The two spent time together in the morning before A.M. dropped off Piatt at home and continued with her day. She testified that they spoke more on the phone throughout the day and had plans to meet again. At about 4:00 p.m., she was driving to his house to meet, but changed her mind and drove past. A.M. testified that she was speaking with someone else on the phone when she realized Piatt was following behind her. She indicated that Piatt was "bumper [to] bumper" with her and continued to follow her, so she relented and drove back to his house. As soon as she parked, Piatt came to her car, removed their son, and carried him and his car seat inside an RV that Piatt kept parked in his driveway. A.M. described the RV as relatively large, with a front area and back area that included a kitchenette and a bed.

{¶12} A.M. followed Piatt into the R.V. Once inside, they began talking about the status of their relationship, as each of them had recently learned that the other had been unfaithful. A.M. testified that she began apologizing to Piatt for her actions while she removed their son from his car seat and held him. Piatt then tried to kiss her, but A.M. turned away. She testified that Piatt continued to try to engage her and told her "he needed to feel like a man." He exposed his penis and pushed her hand down to it, but she told him no and said she "didn't want to." Piatt then told her, "you're not leaving unless I get it," and she froze. Unsure of what to do, she allowed Piatt to take their son and reiterated that she did not want to do this and just wanted to leave. She testified that Piatt settled their son in his car seat and came to her again. Though she tried to push him away, Piatt pushed her back. A.M. then backed up until she was next to the bed and sat down. According to A.M., Piatt had the same look on his face that he had when he choked her to the point of unconsciousness.

{¶13} A.M. testified that she did not try to fight off Piatt because he was bigger, he was a black belt, and she knew from experience that things would not end well for her if she tried. She continued to tell Piatt no, however, and crossed her legs to try to keep her pants on. Even so, Piatt pushed her back onto the bed, forcibly pulled her pants off, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. According to A.M., she continued to say no throughout the encounter, but Piatt kept shushing her, telling her he loved her, and indicating he "just need[ed] this," and "just want[ed] to feel like a man." Once Piatt finished having sex with her, A.M. quickly dressed, grabbed her son, and took him outside. She testified that she was crying and expressed to Piatt that she did not understand how he could do that to her. He then began apologizing and reiterated that he had "just needed to feel like a man." She testified that Piatt was crying when she drove away.

{¶14} In the proceeding days, A.M. and Piatt continued to exchange messages on their cell phones. The State introduced copies of those messages at trial. The messages largely consist of emotionally charged exchanges wherein A.M. repeatedly instructs Piatt to leave her alone and he professes his love and begs her not to keep him away. Three days after the incident, A.M. specifically wrote to Piatt that he "forced [her] to have sex with [him] to feel more like a man" and made her feel "like a worthless junkie whore." Piatt responded: "I can't stop loving you. No matter what. I'm sorry. I wish I could go back in time [and] take away every bad thing that's ever happened to you [and] steal your pain. I love you so much."

{¶15} Piatt argues that his sexual...