[Cite as State v. Stacy, 2016-Ohio-7977.]

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed and Cause Remanded 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 2, 2016 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams,

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Michael J. Trapp, for Defendant-Appellant. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 vs. 

CHAD B. STACY, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-150730 

TRIAL NO. C-15CRB-22986 

 O P I N I O N.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 2

STAUTBERG, Judge. 

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Chad B. Stacy has appealed the judgment of the 

Hamilton County Municipal Court convicting him of sexual imposition in violation of 

R.C. 2907.06. We affirm the trial court’s judgment convicting Stacy of sexual 

imposition, but we hold that the trial court did not provide proper notice to Stacy of 

his sex-offender registration duties as required by R.C. 2950.03, and we remand this 

cause for the court to provide the required notice. 

Facts and Procedure 

{¶2} On August 16, 2015, 16-year-old A.T. was spending the night at her 

mother’s home. A.T. fell asleep on the couch with her dog. At about 4:00 a.m., A.T. 

woke up suddenly to find Stacy touching her. His hand was under her shorts, but 

outside of her underwear. A.T. ran to her mother’s room crying and upset. She woke 

her mother and told her that Stacy had touched her. When confronted by A.T.’s 

mother, Stacy said that he had found dog urine in the house and had been trying to 

get the dog off of the couch and into the bathroom. A.T.’s mother found nothing to 

indicate that the dog had urinated in the house. In the meantime, A.T. called her 

boyfriend and her stepmother. 

{¶3} A.T. met her stepmother at a gas station and they called the police. 

The police officer met A.T. and her stepmother between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. in a 

grocery store parking lot. Although A.T. appeared calm when she described the 

incident, the officer “got the feeling that something had happened” because “she was 

out of the ordinary, something had upset her.” A police detective conducted a followup investigation, which included talking to Stacy. Stacy gave oral and written 

statements in which he stated that he had been trying to get A.T.’s dog and put it into 

the bathroom because it had urinated on the floor. In his oral statement, Stacy 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 3 

admitted that he could have “accidentally” touched A.T. when he was reaching for 

the dog. 

{¶4} Following a bench trial, the trial court found Stacy guilty of sexual 

imposition and sentenced him to 60 days in jail, with credit for 12 days. The court’s 

journal entry states that Stacy “is also declared a Tier I sex offender” and that he 

“must register for 15 years.” 

Sufficiency of Evidence 

{¶5} Stacy’s first assignment of error alleges that his conviction was not 

supported by sufficient evidence. He argues that the state did not produce sufficient 

evidence to corroborate A.T.’s testimony, as required by R.C. 2907.06(B). We 

disagree. 

{¶6} R.C. 2907.06(B) states, “No person shall be convicted of a violation of 

[the sexual imposition statute] solely upon the victim’s testimony unsupported by 

other evidence.” “The corroborating evidence necessary to satisfy R.C. 2907.06(B) 

need not be independently sufficient to convict the accused, and it need not go to 

every essential element of the crime charged. Slight circumstances or evidence 

which tends to support the victim’s testimony is satisfactory.” State v. Economo, 76 

Ohio St.3d 56, 666 N.E.2d 225 (1996), syllabus. In Economo, a patient alleged that 

her treating doctor had inappropriately touched her. The Ohio Supreme Court held 

that medical records showing the physician-patient relationship and that the victim 

had an appointment on the day of the incident, along with evidence that the victim 

had asked her sister to accompany her to the doctor’s office a few days after the 

incident because she was scared and upset and that the victim was on the verge of 

crying when she left the doctor’s office was enough to get over the “threshold inquiry 

of legal sufficiency” to allow the “factfinder to determine whether there was sufficient 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 4

proof beyond a reasonable doubt to support the sexual imposition charges.” Id. at 

60. 

{¶7} In the instant case, A.T. immediately went to her mother’s bedroom 

to report what Stacy had done. A.T. was crying and upset. She called her stepmother 

and her boyfriend to tell them what had happened. The police officer testified that 

when he met A.T. and her stepmother, A.T. appeared as if something had happened 

to her. Stacy admitted that he might have “accidentally” touched A.T. while he was 

reaching for her dog. We hold that this evidence was sufficient to meet the 

corroboration requirement of R.C. 2907.06(B). The first assignment of error is 

overruled. 

Sex Offender Notification 

{¶8} Stacy’s second assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred in 

failing to provide the notification required by R.C. 2950.03 of his registration duties 

as a Tier I sex offender. 

{¶9} R.C. 2950.03(A) provides that “[e]ach person who has been convicted 

of * * * a sexually oriented offense * * * and who has the duty to register * * * shall be 

provided notice in accordance with this section of the offender’s * * * duties imposed 

under sections 2950.04, 2950.041, 2950.05, and 2950.06 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 

2950.03(A)(2) required that Stacy be provided with that notice “at the time of 

sentencing.” 

{¶10} R.C. 2950.03(B)(1) sets forth the specifics of the sex offender 

registration requirements. R.C. 2950.03(B)(1)(a) provides that the “judge shall 

require the offender to read and sign a form stating that the offender’s duties to 

register * * * have been explained to the offender,” and that “[i]f the offender is 

unable to read * * * the judge shall certify on the form that the * * * judge specifically 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 5

informed the offender of those duties and that the offender indicated an 

understanding of those duties.” 

{¶11} R.C. 2950.03(B)(2) specifies that the notice “shall be on a form 

prescribed by the bureau of criminal identification and investigation and shall 

contain all of the information specified in division (A) of this section and all of the 

information required by the bureau.” 

{¶12} Finally, R.C. 2950.03(B)(3) requires that after the form is signed or 

certified in accordance with R.C. 2950.03(B)(1)(a), the judge, in this instance, “shall 

give one copy of the form to the offender * * * shall send one copy of the form to the 

bureau of criminal identification and investigation * * * shall send one copy of the 

form to the sheriff of the county in which the offender expects to reside, and shall 

send one copy of the form to the sheriff of the county in which the offender was 

convicted or pleaded guilty if the offender has a duty to register pursuant to division 

(A)(1) of section 2950.04 or 2950.041 of the Revised Code.” 

{¶13} In the instant case, at sentencing, the court told Stacy, 

Also, because this is a—you’re considered a sex offender at this 

point, and that you automatically, as a result of this conviction, are 

considered to be a Tier I sex offender. 

You have a duty upon your release from the Justice Center to 

register, either in person with the Sheriff of the County of which you 

establish residency within three days, to register with the Sheriff. This 

is a registration requirement which will be more explained to you by 

personnel with either the Clerk’s Office or Sheriff’s Department. 

{¶14} There is nothing in our record that confirms that Stacy was provided 

the notice required by R.C. 2950.03 on the prescribed form, or that he read or signed 

any such form. While the court did inform Stacy that he was a Tier I sex offender, 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 6

and that he would have to register for 15 years and would have to register with the 

sheriff of his county of residence within three days after his release from jail, it 

delegated the task of providing Stacy with specific notice about his registration duties 

to the “Clerk’s Office or the Sheriff’s Department.” The statute requires that the trial 

court provide the notice. There is some reference in the record to “a document” that 

would be given to him, but it is not clear that the document referenced is the form 

required by R.C. 2950.03. There is no signed or unsigned copy of the form in the 

case file, and the record before us does not demonstrate that Stacy was provided the 

form required by the statute. While keeping a copy of the signed form in the case file 

is not required by the statute, the absence of it or any other clear indication on the 

record constrains us to find a lack of compliance with the statute. The second 

assignment of error is sustained. 

Conclusion 

{¶15} The judgment of the trial court convicting Stacy of sexual imposition 

is affirmed, but the cause is remanded for the trial court to properly provide notice to 

Stacy of his sex offender registration requirements pursuant to R.C. 2950.03. 

Judgment affirmed and cause remanded. 

HENDON, P.J., concurs. 

CUNNINGHAM, J., concurs in judgment only. 

Please note: 

 The court has recorded its own entry this date.