[Cite as State v. Bender , 2020-Ohio-722.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 14-19-22

v. JASON G. BENDER, O P I N I O N
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 2018-CR-0168 Judgment Affirmed Date of Decision: March 2, 2020

APPEARANCES: 

### Charles A. Koenig for Appellant 

### David W. Phillips and Melissa A. Chase for AppelleeCase No. 14-19-22

-2- ZIMMERMAN, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jason G. Bender (“Bender”), appeals the Ma y 29, 2019 judgment entry of sentence of the Union County Court of Co mmon Pleas. We affirm. {¶2} This case stems from a June 28-29, 2018 incident during which B ender restrained the victim, K.W., with ropes around her neck, arms, and legs, and by binding her hands and feet with ratchet straps and suspending h er from the rafters of a basement ceiling, then brutally beating and raping her. O n July 13, 2018, Bender was indicted on four counts: Count One of felonious ass ault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), (D)(1)(a), a second-degree felony, with a f irearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A); Count Two of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(3), (C)(1), a first-degree felony, with a sexual-mot ivation specification under R.C. 2941.147(A) and a sexually violent predator specific ation under R.C. 2941.148(A); Count Three of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A )(2), (B), a firstdegree felony, with a sexually violent predator specification u nder R.C. 2941.148(A) and a criminal-gang-activity specification under R. C. 2941.142(A); and Count Four of having weapons while under disability in viol ation of R.C.Case No. 14-19-22

-3- 2923.13(A)(2), (B), a third-degree felony. 1 (Doc. No. 1). Bender appeared for arraignment on July 24, 2018 and entered pleas of not guilty. (Doc. No. 13). {¶3} On January 9, 2019, the State filed a motion requesting that th e trial court declare K.W. a court’s witness. (Doc. No. 42). {¶4} On April 22, 2019, the State filed a motion to dismiss the sexu ally violent predator specification alleged in Counts Two and Three and the criminalgang-activity specification alleged in Count Three of the indic tment, which the trial court dismissed that same day. (Doc. Nos. 75, 76). {¶5} The case proceeded to a jury trial on April 22-24, 2019. On Ap ril 24, 2019, the jury found Bender guilty of all the counts and specif ications in the indictment. (Doc. Nos. 78, 79, 80, 81). ( See also Doc. No. 84). On May 29, 2019, the trial court sentenced Bender to 7 years in prison on Count One, 10 years in prison on Count Two, 10 years in prison on Count Three, 30 months in p rison on Count Four, and 3 years in prison on the firearm specification. (Doc . No. 87). The trial court ordered Bender to serve consecutively the prison terms im posed under Counts One, Two, and Three, and the firearm specification. ( Id. ). Further, the prison term imposed as to Count Four was ordered to be served concurrently to the consecutive prison terms imposed as to Counts One, Two, and Three, and the firearm

1 On April 17, 2019, the State fil ed a motion to amend the indic tment to correct a typographical error, which the trial court amended on April 22, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 70, 77). On April 29, 2019, the State filed a second motion to amend the indictment (to which Bender did not object) , which the trial court granted that same day. (Doc. Nos. 82, 83).Case No. 14-19-22

-4- specification for an aggregate sentence of 30 years in prison. ( Id. ). The trial court also classified Bender as a Tier III sex offender. (Doc. No. 8 8). {¶6} Bender filed a notice of appeal on June 18, 2019 and raises thr ee assignments of error for our review. (Doc. No. 93). Assignment of Error No. I Appellant was deprived of his constitutional rights to due proc ess and to confront his accusers in violation of the Fifth, Sixth a nd Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, as a consequenc e of the trial court permitted [sic] hearsay testimony from a medica l witness regarding statements in the medical record that were no t admissible under any hearsay exception, thereby preventing appellant from exercising his right to confront in a meaningful way. {¶7} In his first assignment of error, Bender argues that the trial court erred by admitting testimony of Andi Stevens (“Stevens”), a forensic nurse coordinator and sexual assault nurse examiner (“SANE”) with OhioHealth, as to statements made to her by K.W. Bender argues that the admission of Steven s’s testimony (i.e., K.W.’s statements) violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He further argues that Stevens’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay evidence. Standard of Review {¶8} Generally, the admission or exclusion of evidence lies within t he trial court’s discretion, and a reviewing court should not reverse ab sent an abuse ofCase No. 14-19-22

-5- discretion and material prejudice. State v. Conway , 109 Ohio St.3d 412, 2006-Ohio2815, ¶ 62, citing State v. Issa , 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (2001). An abuse of discretion implies that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, o r unconscionably. State v. Adams , 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980). “However, we review de novo e videntiary rulings that implicate the Confrontation Clause.” State v. McKelton , 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 97. “De novo review is independent, wit hout deference to the lower court’s decision.” State v. Hudson , 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-12-38, 2013- Ohio-647, ¶ 27, citing Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. of Ohio , 64 Ohio St.3d 145, 147 (1992). Analysis {¶9} We will begin by addressing whether the admission of Stevens’s testimony violated Bender’s Sixth Amendment rights. The Confro ntation Clause to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, made app licable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “‘[i]n all cr iminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with t he witnesses against him * * * .’” Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 42, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004), quoting the Confrontation Clause. See also State v. Maxwell , 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, ¶ 34; State v. McNeal , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-01-158, 2002-Ohio2981, ¶ 43, fn. 13. The United States Supreme Court has interpreted [the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation] to mean that admission of an out-Case No. 14-19-22

-6- of-court statement of a witness who does not appear at trial is prohibited by the Confrontation Clause if the statement is test imonial unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant has had a p rior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
Maxwell at ¶ 34, citing Crawford at 53-54. The United States Supreme Court “did not define the word ‘testimonial’ but stated that the core clas s of statements implicated by the Confrontation Clause includes statements ‘mad e under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.’” Id. , quoting Crawford at 52. {¶10} “Only testimonial hearsay implicates the Confrontation Clause.”
McKelton at ¶ 185. “‘[T]estimonial statements are those made for “a pr imary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testim ony.”’” Id. , quoting
Maxwell at ¶ 40, quoting Michigan v. Bryant , 562 U.S. 344, 358, 131 S.Ct. 1143 (2011). That is, “[t]o rank as ‘testimonial,’ a statement must have a ‘primary purpose’ of ‘establish[ing] or prov[ing] past events potentiall y relevant to later criminal prosecution.’” Bullcoming v. New Mexico , 564 U.S. 647, 659, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2714 (2011), fn. 6, quoting Davis v. Washington , 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266 (2006). “The key issue is what constitutes a testimonial statement: ‘It is the testimonial character of the statement that separates it from o ther hearsay that, while subject to traditional limitations upon hearsay evidence, is no t subject to the Confrontation Clause.’” State v. Hood , 135 Ohio St.3d 137, 2012-Ohio-6208, ¶ 33, quoting Davis at 821. Nevertheless, “[t]here is also no dispute that theCase No. 14-19-22

-7- Confrontation Clause ‘does not bar the use of testimonial state ments for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.’” State v. Ricks , 136 Ohio St.3d 356, 2013-Ohio-3712, ¶ 18, quoting Crawford at 59, and citing Williams v.
Illinois , 567 U.S. 50, 57-58, 132 S.Ct. 2221 (2012). {¶11} In this case, Bender argues that the trial court erred by admit ting Stevens’s testimony regarding statements made to her by K.W.—na mely, a “narrative history” provided to Stevens’s by K.W. at the hospit al. However, even if any of K.W.’s statements to Stevens were testimonial in natu re, there was no constitutional error since the victim testified at trial and wa s subject to crossexamination. “Admission of testimonial statements against a pa rty is a constitutional error when that party does not have the opportun ity to cross-examine the declarant.” State v. Durdin , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-249, 2014-Ohio5759, ¶ 30, citing State v. Arnold , 126 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-Ohio-2742, ¶ 36, citing Crawford at 68. “Consequently, the Confrontation Clause does not requi re exclusion of prior statements of a witness who testifies at tri al.” State v. Lykins , 4th Dist. Adams No. 18CA1079, 2019-Ohio-3316, ¶ 90, citing California v. Green , 399 U.S. 149, 164, 90 S.Ct. 1930 (1970), and citing Arnold at ¶ 66, State v. Powell , 132 Ohio St.3d 233, 2012-Ohio-2577, ¶ 64, State v. Kersbergen , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-10-218, 2015-Ohio-3103, ¶ 68, State v. Gray , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-176, 2012-Ohio-4769, ¶ 48, and State v. Isa , 2d Dist. Champaign No.Case No. 14-19-22

-8- 07-CA-37, 2008-Ohio-5906, ¶ 16. Therefore, because K.W. testif ied at trial, and Bender was able to fully cross-examine her regarding her out-of -court statements, Stevens’s testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause un der the facts presented. Id. at ¶ 91; State v. Rose , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-11-214, 2012- Ohio-5607, ¶ 47, citing Gray at ¶ 48. {¶12} Having determined that Stevens’s testimony was not barred by th e Confrontation Clause, we must now address whether her testimony was admissible under the Ohio Rules of Evidence. See State v. Martin , 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2015AP0010, 2016-Ohio-225, ¶ 52, citing State v. Jones , 135 Ohio St.3d 10, 2012- Ohio-5677, ¶ 165. See also Lykins at ¶ 92. Hearsay is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Evid.R. 80 1(C). Hearsay is generally not admissible unless an exception applies. Evid.R. 8 02. “Evid.R. 803 is one such rule which permits the admission of certain hearsay st atements even though the declarant is available as a witness.” Dayton v. Combs , 94 Ohio App.3d 291, 300 (2d Dist.1993). Under Evid.R. 803, the following hear say statements are admissible: (1) present sense impression; (2) excited utteranc e; (3) then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition; and (4) statements fo r the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.Case No. 14-19-22

-9- {¶13} “As relevant here, Evid.R. 803(4) provides an exception for ‘[s]tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatme nt and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensatio ns, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof in sofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.’” State v. Remy , 2d Dist. Clark No. 2017-CA7, 2018-Ohio-2857, ¶ 44, quoting Evid.R. 803(4). “The hearsay rules except statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatme nt due to the inherent reliability underlying the nature of those statements. ” Lykins at ¶ 94. See also State v. Muttart , 116 Ohio St.3d 5, 2007-Ohio-5267, ¶ 39. “[S]tatements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are consider ed reliable because ‘“facts reliable enough to be relied on in reaching a diagnosis have sufficient trustworthiness to satisfy hearsay concerns.”’” Lykins at ¶ 95, quoting State v.
Dever , 64 Ohio St.3d 401, 411 (1992), quoting McCormick, Evidence , Section 250 (4th Ed.1992), and citing Muttart at ¶ 41. “Thus, ‘“[i]f a statement is made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment, it is admissible pursuant t o Evid.R. 803(4).”’”
Id. , quoting Muttart at ¶ 37, quoting Dever at 414. {¶14} “In sexual assault cases such as the case at bar, there is ofte n testimony from a sexual assault nurse. Similar to the dual role of a soc ial worker interviewing a child who may be a victim of sexual abuse, these nurses often perform a dual role involving both medical diagnosis and treatment and the investig ation and gatheringCase No. 14-19-22

-10- of evidence.” Rose , 2012-Ohio-5607, at ¶ 42, citing Arnold , 126 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-Ohio-2742, at ¶ 33. “Only those statements made for the p urpose of diagnosis and treatment are admissible under Evid.R. 803(4).” Id. , citing Arnold at ¶ 28 and
Muttart at ¶ 47. See also State v. Hartman , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26609, 2016- Ohio-2883, ¶ 51. “Accordingly, the salient inquiry when determ ining whether a hearsay statement is admissible under Evid.R. 803(4), is whethe r the statement was made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment rather than for som e other purpose.”
Rose at ¶ 42, citing Muttart at ¶ 47. “One such ‘other purpose’ is the gathering of forensic information to investigate and potentially prosecute a defendant.” Id. , citing Arnold at ¶ 33. “To the extent that a victim’s statement to a nurse is for investigative purposes in furtherance of such criminal prosecut ion, the statements will not fall within the hearsay exception under Evid.R. 803(4) . Rather, such statements are considered ‘testimonial’ and implicate the Confr ontation Clause.”
Id. , citing Arnold at ¶ 28, citing State v. Siler , 116 Ohio St.3d 39, 2007-Ohio-5637, ¶ 2. {¶15} We conclude that Stevens’s testimony was properly admitted as a statement made by a victim for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. See State v. Wallace , 3d Dist. Union No. 14-10-20, 2011-Ohio-1728, ¶ 18. At trial, Stevens testified that her “role as a Forensic Nurse [is to] do a history of the events from the assault that” caused the victim to seek medical treatm ent. (Apr. 22, 2019Case No. 14-19-22

-11- Tr., Vol. I, at 122). Specifically, she testified that the “hi story of events” “helps guide [her] exam looking for injuries, helping with diagnosis a nd further treatment that may need to be done * * * and, also, safety planning, if t he patient is to be discharged.” ( Id. ). Importantly, Stevens testified that (as a part of her “hist ory of events”), she “take[s] a more narrative history” from the patie nt, which is “important for [her] to provide appropriate medical treatment * * * .” ( Id. at 127). Stevens then testified to the narrative that she documented from K.W. ( See id. at 128-132). {¶16} Although narrative accounts may reveal information subsequently used by law enforcement in a criminal prosecution, “[n]arrative accounts can be reasonably pertinent in establishing a potential diagnosis or t reatment.” State v.
Warman , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2016-02-029, 2017-Ohio-244, ¶ 70 (Pip er, J., concurring). See also id. (“Even though the victim’s narrative account offered to medical personnel can subsequently be used by law enforcement i n a criminal prosecution does not prevent the statement from being admitted into evidence pursuant to Evid.R. 803(4).”), citing State v. Thomas , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101202, 2015-Ohio-415, ¶ 24. Indeed, “[a] description of an ab usive encounter has consistently been determined to be within the scope of statemen ts offered for medical treatment or diagnosis.” Id. at ¶ 71, citing State v. Diaz , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103878, 2016-Ohio-5523, ¶ 33-34. That is, “[a] narrative a ccount containing peripheral details as the victim recounts abusive activities ca n be made for theCase No. 14-19-22

-12- primary purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.” Id. , citing State v. Williams , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C140199, 2015-Ohio-3968, ¶ 31-34. Speci fically, “[a] patient’s statements concerning how the alleged rape occurred c an be relevant to show the ‘general character of the cause or external source the reof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.’” Wallace at ¶ 18, quoting Evid.R. 803(4). “For example, the victim’s statements may guide medica l personnel to the particular area(s) of the victim’s body to be examined for inju ry, as well as indicate which areas may need more immediate treatment than others.” Id. , citing State v.
Menton , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 07 MA 70, 2009-Ohio-4640, ¶ 51. There fore, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that K.W.’s statem ents contained in the narrative (as presented through Stevens’s testimony) were f or the purpose of medical treatment or diagnosis. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Stevens’s testimony. See id. {¶17} Even if we were to conclude that Stevens’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay, the error would be harmless. See id. at ¶ 21. “‘Any error in the admission of hearsay is generally harmless where the declar ant of the hearsay statement is cross-examined on the same matters and the seeming ly erroneous evidence is cumulative in nature.’” Id. , quoting In re M.E.G. , 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 06AP-1256, 06AP-1257, 06AP-1258, 06AP-1263, 06AP-1264, and 06AP1265, 2007-Ohio-4308, ¶ 32. Indeed, as we previously addressed , the victim wasCase No. 14-19-22

-13- present at trial and subject to cross-examination, and the jury was able to assess her credibility. See id. ; State v. Ceron , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99388, 2013-Ohio-5241, ¶ 61; Rose , 2012-Ohio-5607, at ¶ 48, citing State v. Cappadonia , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-11-138, 2010-Ohio-494, ¶ 20. {¶18} Moreover, Bender’s argument that Stevens’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay because “Nurse Stevens [sic] primary reaso n for performing her specialized exam on [K.W.] was to obtain evidence of a crim e” is misplaced. (Appellant’s Brief at 12). See Wallace at ¶ 19; Rose at ¶ 42. Instead, Bender’s argument is relevant to whether the victim’s statements were te stimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause. See Wallace at ¶ 19; Rose at ¶ 42. However, because we already concluded that no Confrontation Clause viola tion occurred in this case, Bender’s argument is specious. {¶19} For these reasons, Bender’s first assignment of error is overru led. Assignment of Error No. II Appellant was deprived of his constitutional rights to due proc ess and effective assistance of counsel in violation of his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, when the tr ial court called the victim as a court witness pursuant to Evid.R. 614, and, further, when appellant’s trial counsel failed to object t o the court calling the victim pursuant to Evid.R. 614.Case No. 14-19-22

-14- {¶20} In his second assignment of error, Bender argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court design ating K.W. as a court’s witness. Standard of Review {¶21} A defendant asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of coun sel must establish: (1) the counsel’s performance was deficient or unre asonable under the circumstances; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. State v.
Kole , 92 Ohio St.3d 303, 306 (2001), citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). In order to show counsel’s conduct was deficient or unreasonable, the defendant must overcome the presumption that counsel provided competent representation and must show that counsel’s actions w ere not trial strategies prompted by reasonable professional judgment. Strickland at 687. Counsel is entitled to a strong presumption that all decisions fall within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. State v. Sallie , 81 Ohio St.3d 673, 675 (1998). Tactical or strategic trial decisions, even if unsucce ssful, do not generally constitute ineffective assistance. State v. Carter , 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 558 (1995). Rather, the errors complained of must amount to a substantial v iolation of counsel’s essential duties to his client. See State v. Bradley , 42 Ohio St. 3d 136, 141-142 (1989), quoting State v. Lytle , 48 Ohio St.2d 391, 396 (1976), vacated in part on other grounds , 438 U.S. 910, 98 S.Ct. 3135 (1978).Case No. 14-19-22

-15- {¶22} “Prejudice results when ‘there is a reasonable probability that , but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding w ould have been different.’” State v. Liles , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-04, 2014-Ohio-259, ¶ 48, quoting Bradley at 142, citing Strickland at 691. “‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’” Id. , quoting Bradley at 142 and citing Strickland at 694. Analysis {¶23} On appeal, Bender alleges that his trial counsel was ineffectiv e for failing to object to the trial court designating K.W. as a cour t’s witness. Under Evid.R. 614(A), “[t]he court may, on its own motion or at the s uggestion of a party, call witnesses, and all parties are entitled to cross-examine w itnesses thus called.” The purpose of calling a witness as a court’s witness is to all ow for a proper determination in a case where a witness is reluctant or unwilli ng to testify, or there is some indication that the witness’s trial testimony will cont radict a prior statement made to police. State v. Renner , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25514, 2013-Ohio-5463, ¶ 23, citing State v. Curry , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89075, 2007-Ohio-5721, ¶ 18;
State v. Arnold , 189 Ohio App.3d 507, 2010-Ohio-5379, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.). “The p rime candidate is a victim and an eyewitness who will not otherwise cooperate with the party originally planning to call him.” Renner at ¶ 23, citing Curry at ¶ 18.Case No. 14-19-22

-16- {¶24} In this case, prior to the start of trial, the State filed a mo tion requesting that the trial court call K.W. as its witness under Evid.R. 614 (A). In support of its motion, the State represented to the trial court that since the time that K.W. was interviewed by law enforcement regarding the June 28-29, 2018 i ncident, K.W. “remain[ed] somewhat reluctant to testify due to the nature of th[e] matter and [was] somewhat difficult to reach.” (Doc. No. 42). The State furthe r represented, “It is believed that the victim was not supportive of law enforcement becoming involved in this matter and may be uncooperative regarding her testimony and what she may or may not recall.” ( Id. ). At trial, prior to calling K.W. to the stand, the State (outside the presence of the jury) again requested (and Bender’ s trial counsel did not object) that the trial court call K.W. as its witness. The State argued that it “had difficulty locating” K.W.; “difficulty communicating with” K.W. ; and “issued a subpoena on the day of the trial that it was scheduled for last time in order to make sure that she” appeared at trial. (Apr. 23, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 69). Based on this evidence, it was not error for the trial court to designate K.W . as its witness. See
Renner at ¶ 26; State v. Kiser , 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-03-028, 2005-Ohio-2491, ¶ 13, 16; State v. Marshall , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 01CA007773, 2001 WL 1647706, *2 (Dec. 26, 2001). Because it was not error for the trial cou rt to designate K.W. as its witness, Bender’s trial counsel was not ineffective for fai ling to object. {¶25} Bender’s second assignment of error is overruled.Case No. 14-19-22

-17- Assignment of Error No. III
The evidence adduced at trial is insufficient as a matter of la w to support appellant’s conviction on the charge of rape. {¶26} In his third assignment of error, Bender argues that his rape c onviction is based on insufficient evidence. In particular, Bender conte nds that his rape conviction is based on insufficient evidence because the State presented insufficient evidence that he compelled K.W. to engage in sexual conduct by force or threat of force. Standard of Review {¶27} “An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency o f the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evi dence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would co nvince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds , State v. Smith , 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997). Accordingly, “[t]he 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.” Id. “In deciding if the evidence was sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflic ts nor assess the credibility of witnesses, as both are functions reserved for th e trier of fact.” State v.
Jones , 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120570 and C-120571, 2013-Ohio-4775 , ¶ 33,Case No. 14-19-22

-18- citing State v. Williams , 197 Ohio App.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-6267, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.). See also State v. Berry , 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-12-03, 2013-Ohio-2380, ¶ 19 (“Sufficiency of the evidence is a test of adequacy rather than credibility or weight of the evidence.”), citing Thompkins at 386. Analysis {¶28} R.C. 2907.02 sets forth the offense of rape and provides, in re levant part: “No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another w hen the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.” R.C. 2907.02(A)(2). Bender does not dispute that he engaged in sexu al conduct with K.W.; rather, he argues that the State presented insufficient e vidence that he purposely compelled K.W. to engage in that sexual conduct by fo rce or threat of force. As a result, we need only address those elements of for cible rape: (1) whether Bender purposely compelled K.W. to engage in sexual conduct, an d (2) whether Bender did so by force or threat of force. See State v. Stevens , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-14-58, 2016-Ohio-446, ¶ 14. {¶29} In addressing the force-or-threat-of-force language under the r ape statute, the Supreme Court of Ohio clarified that “[a] defendan t purposely compels another to submit to sexual conduct by force or threat of force if the defendant uses physical force against that person, or creates the belief that physical force will beCase No. 14-19-22

-19- used if the victim does not submit.” State v. Schaim , 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (1992), paragraph one of the syllabus. A person acts purposely when it is the person’s specific intent ion to cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the offense is a p rohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of what the off ender intends to accomplish thereby, it is the offender’s specific in tention to engage in conduct of that nature. R.C. 2901.22(A). “Force” is defined as “any violence, compulsi on, or constraint physically exerted by any means upon or against a person or thi ng.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(1). A victim “need not prove physical resistance to the offender” in order to demonstrate force. R.C. 2907.05(D). {¶30} In rape cases in which the victim is not a child, the State “mu st prove force or threat of force either through direct evidence of such or by inference where the defendant overcame the victim’s will by fear and duress.” State v. Rupp , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 05 MA 166, 2007-Ohio-1561, ¶ 33. See also Stevens at ¶ 20 (“‘[T]he key inquiry for determining whether the State presente d sufficient evidence on the element of force is whether the “victim’s will was overc ome by fear or duress.”’”), quoting State v. Wine , 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-12-01, 2012-Ohio-2837, ¶ 40, quoting In re Forbess , 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-09-20, 2010-Ohio-2826, ¶ 40, citing State v. Heft , 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-09-08, 2009-Ohio-5908, ¶ 88, citing State v. Eskridge , 38 Ohio St.3d 56, 58-59 (1988). “[I]f the defendant created the belief that physical force will be used in the absence of submission, then threat of forceCase No. 14-19-22

-20- can be inferred”—that is, a “threat of force includes both expl icit and implicit threats” because “[n]othing in the rape statute requires the th reat of force to be direct or express.” Rupp at ¶ 33. See also Schaim at paragraph one of the syllabus (“The “force or threat of force” element “can be inferred from the ci rcumstances surrounding sexual conduct.”); State v. Worrell , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-410, 2005-Ohio-1521, ¶ 43 (“Thus, ‘[a] defendant purposely compels a nother to submit to sexual conduct by force or threat of force’ by creating ‘the belief that physical force will be used if the victim does not submit’ to the defend ant’s actions.”), rev’d in part on other grounds , sub nom. In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases , 109 Ohio St.3d 313, 2006-Ohio-2109, quoting Schaim at paragraph one of the syllabus. “In order for a defendant to overcome his victim’s w ill by fear or duress, the defendant would have had to engage in sufficient behavior t oward the victim. This behavior is objective and its effect is viewed in light of the totality of facts and circumstances existing at the time of the alleged rape.” Rupp at ¶ 41. See also
Stevens at ¶ 21 (“‘[T]he amount of force [necessary to prove forcible rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)] must be examined in light of the circumstan ces.’”), quoting State v. Runyons , 3d Dist. Union No. 14-91-30, 1992 WL 136196, *2 (June 9, 1992 ). {¶31} On appeal, Bender contends that the State presented insufficien t evidence that he purposely compelled K.W. to submit to the sexu al conduct by force or threat of force because K.W.’s testimony that she “thought t hat her having sexCase No. 14-19-22

-21- with [Bender] might calm him down and stop him from hitting her ” “shows that she did this knowingly and consensually.” (Appellant’s Brief at 24 ). Specifically, Bender contends that there is insufficient evidence of the forc e-or-threat-of-force element based on K.W.’s testimony because her testimony reveals that “[s]he may not have wanted to have sex with [Bender], and her reasons for doing so may have been far from romantic, but the sex was not forced upon her.” ( Id. ). In fact, the statement Nurse Stevens said [K.W.] made to her, t hat having sex with [Bender] ‘usually’ makes things better and make s [Bender] leave her alone, shows that this sort of sexual behavi or between [Bender] and [K.W.] is not unique to the events of June 28- 29, but appears to be a normal part of their non-traditional relationship. ( Id. ). {¶32} Bender’s argument is misplaced. See Worrell at ¶ 45 (concluding that the victim’s “failure to physically resist does not negate the forcible element of the rapes”), citing State v. Hurst , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 98AP-1549, 2000 WL 249110, *4 (Mar. 7, 2000); Rupp at ¶ 42 (noting that “a victim need not risk physical damage or even death to later prove that she was raped”). K.W.’s test imony does not negate the forcible element of rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2); rather, K.W.’s testimony is sufficient evidence that Bender overcame her will by fear and d uress. See State v.
Thomas , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-17-1266, 2019-Ohio-1916, ¶ 28 (“This te stimony was relevant, because it provided context for the rape and tend ed to explain R.I.’s lack of resistance by demonstrating Thomas’s use of physical ab use, past andCase No. 14-19-22

-22- present, to force her compliance.”). Indeed, that Bender conce des that K.W. “may not have wanted to have sex with” him is illustrative of the im plicit threat to compel K.W. to engage in sexual conduct. {¶33} At trial, K.W. testified that (at the time of the incident) she was in a romantic relationship with Bender and the two were living toget her. (Apr. 23, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 74-75). K.W. testified that (during the evenin g of June 28, 2018), she and Bender began arguing after Bender discovered that she was m oving her things out of the residence that she shared with him. ( Id. at 82). The State presented evidence that the argument progressed into a physical altercati on during which Bender “tied [her] up down in the basement” by placing “ropes” “around [her] neck and arms and legs,” then by binding her hands and her feet with “ratchet straps” and suspending her from the rafters. ( Id. at 84-85); (Apr. 22, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 128); (State’s Ex. 4). Then, Bender “continued hitting” her with “[h ]is fist”; “a piece of wood”; “a pole”; a slingshot; a pan; and a gun. (Apr. 22, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 85-86); (Apr. 23, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 130); (State’s Ex. 4). “Bender had [her] sit there on all fours kicking [her] and then he used a back whip. It’s a leath er strap with heavy objects on it. Leather strap with rebar and a ball bearing on it.” (Apr. 23, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 130-131); (State’s Ex. 4). K.W. “had to sit there o n [her] hands and knees when he put the knife * * * in her vagina.” ( Id. at 131); ( Id. ). Stevens also testifiedCase No. 14-19-22

-23- that K.W. reported to her that Bender bit her arm. (Apr. 23, 2 019 Tr., Vol. I, at 127); (State’s Ex. 4). {¶34} According to Stevens, K.W. reported that Bender would not permi t her to eat or sleep because “that is part of the game, too.” ( Apr. 23, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 132); (State’s Ex. 4). The State also presented evidence that (at some point during the assault), K.W. was naked and that Bender would not r eturn K.W.’s clothes to her. (Apr. 23, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 130); (State’s Ex. 4). Moreover, K.W. testified that Bender forced her to cut off her hair, then he u sed “clipper things” to make it shorter. (Apr. 22, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 89-90). ( See also Apr. 23, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 131); (State’s Ex. 4). K.W. further testified that she was screaming during the assault but Bender put “rags and bandanas” in her mouth to muffle her screams. (Apr. 22, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 131). ( See also Apr. 23, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 129); (State’s Ex. 4). According to K.W., Bender hit and kicked her over her entire body and that the altercation lasted “until the next morning.” (Apr . 22, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 86, 89). Importantly, K.W. testified that she was “scared” of Bender during the June 28-29, 2018 incident. ( Id. at 127). {¶35} Mindful of her fear, K.W. testified that she engaged in sexual conduct (“more than once”) with Bender during the assault “because [she ] thought it would calm him down.” ( Id. at 88). K.W. reported to Stevens that “[u]sually [engaging in sexual conduct with Bender] makes things better and he leaves [ her] alone for a littleCase No. 14-19-22

-24- bit when [she] do[es] it,” but that “[i]t turned worse” in this instance. (Apr. 23, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 131); (State’s Ex. 4). K.W. testified that she eventually escaped by running and hiding from Bender, then having a neighbor take her to Burger King for help. (Apr. 22, 2019 Tr., Vol. I, at 93-94). According to K.W., she requested that her friend take her to a hospital in another county becaus e she was afraid that Bender would find her at the local hospital. ( Id. at 95). {¶36} Based on the totality of the circumstances of this case, a rati onal trier of fact could infer that K.W.’s state of fear or duress during a prolonged period of torture was such that she was compelled to submit to the sexual conduct to end the

torture. See Thomas , 2019-Ohio-1916, at ¶ 27 (concluding that the victim’s testimony “regarding past incidents of physical abuse” and that she engaged in sexual conduct with Thomas because “she wanted the abuse to end and for Thomas to leave” was relevant to whether Thomas purposely compelled th e victim to engage in sexual conduct by force or threat of force). See also State v. Rucker , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110082, 2012-Ohio-185, ¶ 17 (concluding that evi dence that Rucker struck the victim with belts—even if the beatings occurr ed at times other than the sexual assaults—was relevant to whether the victim’s w ill had been overcome by fear or duress); Hurst , 2000 WL 249110, at *4 (Mar. 7, 2000) (noting that the absence of physical resistance “highlights the frightf ul experiences and threat of force present during the sexual encounter”). Accordi ngly, a rational trierCase No. 14-19-22

-25- of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Bender en gaged in conduct which would overcome K.W.’s will by fear or duress and, therefo re, that Bender purposely compelled K.W. to engage in sexual conduct by force o r threat of force. Consequently, Bender’s rape conviction is based on sufficient e vidence, and his third assignment of error is overruled. {¶37} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in th e particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Judgment Affirmed SHAW, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur. /jlr