[Cite as State v. Partin, 2020-Ohio-4624.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

LINDSAY PARTIN, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2019-05-079 

O P I N I O N 

9/28/2020 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2018-03-0462 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael Greer, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee 

Rittgers & Rittgers, Attorneys at Law, Neal D. Schuett, 121 West High Street, Oxford, Ohio 

45056, for appellant 

 RINGLAND, J. 

{¶1} Lindsay Partin appeals her convictions in the Butler County Common Pleas 

Court for endangering children, involuntary manslaughter, and murder. For the reasons 

described below, this court affirms Partin's convictions. 

{¶2} This case involves the death of Hannah Wesche, who was hospitalized with 

a traumatic brain injury on March 8, 2018, never recovered, and passed away ten days 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 2 - 

later. Hannah was 3 years and 2 months old at the time of her passing. 

{¶3} Partin had been Hannah's babysitter. On the morning of March 8, Hannah's 

father, Jason Wesche, dropped Hannah off with Partin and left to go to work. Minutes later, 

Partin called Jason and told him that something was wrong with Hannah. Jason raced 

back. Hannah was struggling to breath and unresponsive. Emergency responders rushed 

Hannah to the hospital. 

{¶4} Hannah had multiple bruises over her body, hemorrhages in both eyes, and 

a CT scan revealed a large subdural hemorrhage. Given her injuries, doctors and 

investigators suspected that Hannah's injuries were nonaccidental. 

{¶5} Detectives interviewed Partin that day. Partin denied any knowledge of what 

happened to Hannah, claimed that she seemed fine, and stated that Hannah just collapsed 

upon walking into Partin's home. Detectives interviewed Partin again the following day, 

during which she made multiple inculpatory statements admitting to excessively disciplining 

Hannah earlier that week and shaking Hannah on the morning of March 8. 

{¶6} Following Hannah's death, a Butler County grand jury indicted Partin on six 

counts. Counts one and two charged Partin with committing felony endangering children 

against Hannah on the two days leading up to March 8, 2018. The remaining counts 

charged Partin with acts occurring on March 8, 2018, constituting felony endangering 

children (counts three and five), involuntary manslaughter (count four), and murder (count 

six). Counts three and five served as the predicate, underlying offenses for counts four and 

six, respectively. 

{¶7} The matter proceeded to a jury trial in April 2019. The state played Partin's 

call to 9-1-1, in which she relayed that Hannah had just "passed out." Partin told the 

dispatcher that Hannah "was fine," that she "walked into the house and just passed out" 

and that she "went limp." Twice during the call, Partin mentioned that Hannah "fell really 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 3 - 

bad yesterday." Partin also mentioned a bruise under Hannah's chin. 

{¶8} Evan Reedy, an EMT, responded to the 9-1-1 call at Partin's residence, 

located at 4050 Shank Road, Hanover Township. EMT Reedy testified that when he 

arrived, Hannah was laid on a couch. Her breathing was like a "sniffing," shallow and 

irregular. Her eyes were moving, but without purpose. Reedy noticed some bruising on 

various parts of Hannah's body, including the chest and eyes, which appeared sunken. 

Partin told him, another EMT, and a deputy on scene, that Hannah had fallen after standing 

on a toy a day earlier. Reedy and the other EMT secured Hannah for travel and then 

transported her to Fort Hamilton Hospital. 

{¶9} Deputy Damon Mayer testified that he was on road patrol for the Butler County 

Sheriff's Office that morning and responded to the 9-1-1 call. He noted bruising on 

Hannah's left eye and chin. Partin told him that Hannah had walked through the garage, 

walked up the steps, asked Partin for a donut and to sit on the couch, and then "passed 

out," falling forward onto the carpeted floor. Partin also said that on the previous day, at 

4:00 p.m., Hannah had been playing in the garage and fell and hit her head on concrete. 

Partin said she had informed Jason about this accident. 

{¶10} Dr. Ahn Quan Nguyen, an emergency room physician at Fort Hamilton 

Hospital, treated Hannah upon her arrival. Hannah was unresponsive and not able to 

breathe on her own. Dr. Nguyen intubated Hannah and placed her on a ventilator. He 

observed multiple bruises on Hannah's body, and further observed that her pupils were not 

reacting appropriately, and that there was blood behind her eyes. Dr. Nguyen ordered a 

CT scan of Hannah's head, neck, and face. Dr. Nguyen ordered that Hannah be transported 

by air care to Cincinnati Children's Hospital for further treatment. Hannah left on an air care 

flight approximately one hour after arriving at Fort Hamilton Hospital. 

{¶11} Dr. Marguerite M. Caré is the staff neuroradiologist at Cincinnati Children's 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 4 - 

Hospital and testified for the state as an expert in pediatric radiology. On March 8, 2018, 

Dr. Caré reviewed Hannah's CT scans taken at Fort Hamilton Hospital. Hannah had a large 

subdural hemorrhage that was causing the mid-line of her brain to shift over to one side of 

her skull. Dr. Caré explained that this shifting would have caused brain injuries and 

significant brain abnormalities. 

{¶12} Dr. Caré noted that the most likely cause of the subdural hemorrhage was 

trauma. Furthermore, Dr. Caré opined that the subdural hemorrhage seen in Hannah's 

case was not consistent with everyday accidents, like a fall, but instead was consistent with 

"abusive head trauma." With Hannah's injuries, Dr. Caré would not have expected her to 

be walking, or able to breathe on her own, and she would have been unconscious. 

Furthermore, Dr. Caré opined that these symptoms would have started within seconds of 

the injury. 

{¶13} Based on Hannah's CT scans, Dr. Caré determined that Hannah required 

immediate medical intervention. She shared her findings with a neurosurgeon who then 

removed a part of Hannah's skull in order to drain the hemorrhage. The surgery was 

successful in draining the hemorrhage. However, because Hannah's brain had swollen 

from the injury, it began to swell out of the area where the surgeon removed the portion of 

skull. 

{¶14} Dr. Michael Yang is a board certified ophthalmologist at Cincinnati Children's 

Hospital and testified for the state as an expert witness in pediatric ophthalmology. Dr. 

Yang examined Hannah's eyes and found them to be extensively hemorrhaged. 

Hemorrhages were present in all three layers of the eye. Dr. Yang opined that Hannah's 

eye condition was most consistent with nonaccidental abusive head trauma and severe 

brain injury. 

{¶15} Dr. Ranjit Chima testified that he was one of the physicians in the pediatric 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 5 - 

ICU responsible for Hannah's care following her emergency surgery. While in the ICU, 

Hannah never regained consciousness and her neurological condition deteriorated. After 

three days, Dr. Chima determined that Hannah was progressing towards brain death. On 

March 18, 2018, after meeting the criteria for brain death, doctors pronounced Hannah 

deceased. 

{¶16} Dr. Dorothy Dean is a forensic pathologist and performed Hannah's autopsy. 

She testified for the state as an expert witness in forensic pathology. Dr. Dean noted that 

Hannah weighed 32 pounds and was 38.5 inches long. After shaving Hannah's hair, Dr. 

Dean located bruises on the back and right side of Hannah's head. Dr. Dean examined 

underneath the skin on the back of Hannah's head and located two additional bruises. Dr. 

Dean further located a bruise in the deep muscle of the neck. 

{¶17} Dr. Dean noted that Hannah had "tremendous" hemorrhages in her eyes. 

Upon examining Hannah's brain, Dr. Dean observed "tremendous" brain swelling and a 

shearing injury to the brain. Dr. Dean opined that Hannah's cause of death was a traumatic 

brain injury due to a blunt, tremendous force that went through her brain. A fall from ground 

level would not cause the injuries observed. Hannah would not have been walking, talking, 

or behaving in a normal fashion after receiving the injury, and would have been 

neurologically abnormal and unresponsive "within moments." Dr. Dean opined that 

Hannah's manner of death was homicide. 

{¶18} Dr. Kathi Makoroff, Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the Mayerson Center 

at Cincinnati Children's Hospital, testified for the state as an expert in child abuse pediatrics. 

At trial, she reviewed a series of medical file photographs, which were introduced into 

evidence, depicting the injuries observed on Hannah when she arrived at Children's 

Hospital. She noted multiple bruises that she found concerning for child abuse including 

those bruises around Hannah's eyes, left ear, under her chin, her flanks, upper arms, and 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 6 - 

buttocks. Given Hannah's overall medical condition, Dr. Makoroff opined that Hannah's 

injuries were nonaccidental with a diagnoses of child physical abuse and abusive head 

trauma. 

{¶19} Dr. Makoroff further opined that Hannah's injuries were not caused by a fall 

or multiple falls and that much greater force was involved in causing the injuries. Shaking 

alone could have caused the injuries that resulted in Hannah's death. Furthermore, Hannah 

would have been unresponsive after the injury. 

{¶20} On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Dr. Makoroff if her opinion 

testimony about bruises was "about the location and pattern of bruises on Hannah's body." 

Dr. Makoroff agreed that she testified in that manner as to some of the bruises. Defense 

counsel then questioned Dr. Makoroff as to whether she had offered an opinion about 

patterns and locations of bruises in her expert opinion letter, which was provided in advance 

of trial to the defense. The state objected to this line of questioning and a sidebar ensued. 

The court ultimately found that Dr. Makoroff's opinion testimony that related to the patterns 

and locations of bruises was within the scope of the opinion letter. 

{¶21} Detective Janee Lambert testified that investigators first questioned Partin in 

a formal interview on March 8, 2018, which interview was video-recorded and admitted into 

evidence. In the recording, a detective initially read Partin her Miranda rights. Partin 

indicated she understood her rights and executed a Miranda rights waiver form. 

{¶22} As the interview began, a detective told Partin that Hannah had died, which 

was not true at the time. Partin denied any knowledge of what caused Hannah to become 

unresponsive. She stated that Jason had carried Hannah into the garage that morning. 

She examined Hannah's face and told Jason that "her face looks good" and "her bruise 

looks better." Hannah asked Jason for another hug and double kisses before Jason left. 

Hannah was acting "completely normal," was not acting different, and only acted a little 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 7 - 

tired. Hannah told Partin that she wanted "couch and donut" and then fell face forward on 

to the carpet. It happened within 30 seconds. Partin called Jason first before calling 9-1-

1. 

{¶23} Later, detectives paused their questioning and left Partin alone in the interview 

room. During this time, Partin announced aloud, "I am going to prison for the rest of my 

life." When the interview resumed, Partin told detectives she had seen bruises sometimes 

on the back of Hannah's head and on her arms. Hannah had also fallen on some gravel 

on Tuesday, March 6. The next day, Partin had been "trying to make her chin look better" 

by using vapor rub. 

{¶24} Lead Detective Dan Turner testified concerning a second interview with 

Partin, which he and another detective conducted on March 9, 2018. The second interview 

was video-recorded and admitted into evidence. Again, Partin was informed of her Miranda

rights and again waived them in writing. 

{¶25} During this interview, Detective Turner produced photographs taken at the 

hospital of the various external bruising found on Hannah. While reviewing the 

photographs, Partin reiterated her earlier claims that certain bruises were the result of falling 

on gravel on Tuesday, March 6 or falling off a toy in Partin's garage on Wednesday, March 

7. Partin again denied any knowledge of what caused Hannah to collapse in her home on 

the morning of March 8. 

{¶26} Approximately 50 minutes into the interview, Partin admitted for the first time 

that something had happened to Hannah in Partin's home on Thursday morning. Hannah 

had slipped at the entry door between the house and garage and hit her head on a concrete 

step. Partin said that after the fall, she picked Hannah up and then Hannah said, "I want 

donut and couch." And then Hannah collapsed. 

{¶27} Detectives told Partin that the fall she had just described would not have 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 8 - 

caused Hannah's injuries based on what Hannah's physicians were relaying to them and 

encouraged her to tell the truth. Partin then changed her story. She now stated that "when 

I opened the door, I dropped her, and I slipped and fell." Partin said she slipped on 

Hannah's blanket, they both fell, and Hannah hit her head on the metal part of the concrete 

step. Hannah hit "really hard." Partin showed the detectives a bruise on her hand, which 

allegedly resulted from the fall. 

{¶28} The detectives continued to question Partin and informed her that a fall would 

not cause the severe injuries suffered by Hannah. Partin then admitted that she "probably 

shook" Hannah "hard," after the fall, for one minute. Hannah's head was "snapping around." 

Partin was panicked. She also "probably" dropped Hannah. 

{¶29} Partin later modified her story once more and admitted that she shook Hannah 

before the alleged fall. Partin explained that Hannah had been whining because she did 

not want her father to go to work. Partin shook her, picked her up, squeezed her, then they 

fell. She shook Hannah again after they fell. 

{¶30} Partin admitted that she was frustrated. Hannah had been whining after her 

father every morning. Partin demonstrated violently shaking Hannah and yelling, "stop 

doing this already!" Partin admitted that she shook Hannah until she stopped whining. 

{¶31} With respect to some of the bruising around Hannah's head, Partin explained 

that earlier in the week she "slapped" Hannah "upside the head" because Hannah took 

ketchup and squirted it into the toilet. With regard to the bruise under Hannah's chin, Partin 

admitted that she twice struck Hannah under the chin. She demonstrated the double-strike 

with an uppercut-like motion using a martial arts-style clawed fist. 

{¶32} With regard to the bruises observed on Hannah's chest, which Partin had 

earlier claimed were from when Hannah fell on gravel or rocks, Partin confessed that these 

bruises were from physical discipline. Partin demonstrated aggressively poking Hannah 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 9 - 

while yelling "Hannah! You know better!" Partin also demonstrated how she squeezed 

Hannah around the middle or her body to discipline her. When asked why she would do 

these things to Hannah, Partin explained that it was because Hannah was mischievous and 

because Partin was frustrated with personal problems. 

{¶33} Jason Wesche testified that he and Hannah lived at 4004 Shank Road, which 

was about 300 feet from Partin's residence. Partin babysat Hannah during the day, baby 

sat other children, and took care of her own children. The week of March 4, 2018, he had 

conversations with Partin about some injuries observed on Hannah. Hannah had bruises 

all over her chest and a "pretty bad" scrape on the chin. Partin told him that these occurred 

because Hannah had fallen on rocks in the driveway. On another day, Partin told him that 

Hannah stepped on top of a toy on wheels and it "kicked from underneath her. And she fell 

on the handlebar." Hannah had bruising around her eye from this incident. 

{¶34} On the morning of March 8, 2018, Jason helped Hannah put on her coat and 

shoes and at 6:52 a.m., Jason sent Partin a text indicating that they were "getting ready to 

head over" as he and Hannah left 4004 Shank Road. Partin texted him back "ok." 

{¶35} Jason testified that he and Hannah left the home and went to his car. That 

morning Hannah wanted to lay in the backseat for the drive over. They drove to Partin's 

residence. Jason estimated that he would have arrived at the Partin residence three 

minutes after sending the text, or 6:55 a.m. 1

{¶36} Jason carried Hannah, who was wrapped in a blanket, into Partin's garage 

and gave Hannah hugs and kisses. That morning was different because Hannah kept 

asking for more kisses. Then, Partin took Hannah and he walked away. He did not see 

 

1. On March 5 and March 6, Jason texted Partin indicating that he was bringing Hannah over, and in those 

texts, he indicated he would arrive at Partin's home in 3 minutes and 2 minutes respectively. 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 10 - 

them enter the home, but they were headed that way. 

{¶37} Jason got into his car and then drove down to his work truck located at a 

business down at the end of Shank Road.2 He got out of his vehicle, got into his work truck 

and started it, then got back into his vehicle. He then saw that he had missed a call from 

Partin. He returned the call and Partin told him there was something wrong with Hannah. 

Jason then raced back to the Partin residence. 

{¶38} Jason also testified about his activities on Wednesday March 7, 2018. That 

evening, he picked up Hannah from Partin's home at 7:00 p.m. A friend of his, Chris Davis, 

had stayed at 4004 Shank Road that day. After picking up Hannah, Jason and Hannah 

drove Chris to Chris' residence in Fairfield, Ohio. Then they returned to 4004 Shank Road 

and he and Hannah lay on the couch and went to sleep. 

{¶39} Jason admitted that at the start of the investigation he told detectives that he 

had gone to Wal-Mart on the evening of March 7 to get milk for Hannah and that he had not 

mentioned Chris or travelling to Fairfield. He remembered what had actually occurred after 

talking with Chris before he was going to testify. He told Detective Turner about this 

recollection the day before his testimony. 

{¶40} The state introduced Partin's cell phone records, which revealed that Jason 

texted "getting ready to head over" at 6:52:17 a.m. Partin responded, "Ok" at 6:52:55 a.m. 

Partin then called Jason at 7:00:47 a.m., which call was not answered. Jason returned the 

call at 7:01:24 a.m. Partin called 9-1-1 at 7:02:51 a.m., which call lasted 13 minutes until 

emergency responders arrived. 

{¶41} On March 7, at 8:48 a.m., Partin used her phone's Google app to search "how 

 

2. The record is unclear concerning the distance between the Partin residence and the business. Based on 

an aerial map of Shank Road introduced into evidence, the business appears to be located less than a quarter 

mile from the Partin residence. 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 11 - 

to get rid of a bruise." This search was found to have been deleted from the phone. The 

same day, at 2:56 p.m., Partin searched "what essential oil is good for bruises" and "is 

vaporub good for bruises." These two searches were not deleted. On March 8, at 9:13 

p.m., Partin again searched "how to get rid of a bruise." This search was deleted. 

{¶42} Partin took the stand in her defense case. She denied causing any harm to 

Hannah between March 6 and March 8, 2018. She told detectives what she did in the 

second interview because she wanted to "protect everybody." This was because the 

detectives were asking about whether Partin's husband or Jason could have harmed 

Hannah and she did not want anyone to be in trouble. 

{¶43} Partin estimated that it took Jason 7 to 8 minutes to arrive after he sent his 

text at 6:52 a.m. Jason walked in with Hannah wrapped in a blanket. Partin and Jason 

"chit-chatted" about the snow and vapor rub. She looked at Hannah for "a second" and 

then told Jason that it looked like the vapor rub "worked." He said "yeah." Hannah stood 

up, grabbed Partin's hand, and the two walked into the residence. Partin then asked 

Hannah if she wanted to go to the couch or go to sleep, because Hannah seemed tired. 

Hannah responded, "donut and couch." She then collapsed. Partin said she had Hannah 

for ten seconds before she collapsed. 

{¶44} Partin said she saw bruising below Hannah's chin on Wednesday morning 

and put vapor rub and essential oils on it. She assumed it was from when Hannah fell on 

gravel the day before. Partin admitted that her story about Hannah putting ketchup in the 

toilet was a lie. 

{¶45} On cross-examination, Partin stated that she did not think she would get in 

trouble for telling detectives that she had hurt Hannah because Jason would "back me up." 

She confirmed that she did not believe she would be in trouble for poking Hannah in the 

chest, squeezing her in the middle, hitting her with a closed fist multiple times under the 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 12 - 

chin, and shaking her. Partin also confirmed that the story about her falling with Hannah 

was a lie and she also lied about getting a bruise on her hand from that fall. She told 

detectives the lie about the bruise on her hand because it "seemed logical at the time." 

{¶46} The jury convicted Partin on all six counts. During sentencing the court 

informed Partin of her duty to register as a violent offender under Sierah's Law. Partin 

appeals, raising seven assignments of error. 

{¶47} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶48} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND PREJUDICED THE 

DEFENDANT WHEN IT ALLOWED AN EXPERT WITNESS FOR THE STATE TO 

TESTIFY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE EXPERT'S REPORT, IN VIOLATION OF 

CRIM.R 16(K). 

{¶49} Partin contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to exclude 

Dr. Makoroff's expert opinion that the "patterns and locations" of bruises on Hannah's body 

indicated child abuse. Partin claims that Dr. Makoroff's opinion was a new theory of the 

evidence and had not been disclosed in a written report as required by Crim.R. 16(K). Partin 

argues the state's failure to disclose Dr. Makoroff's opinion prejudiced her defense because 

she had no ability to contradict Dr. Makoroff's theory with her own expert opinion or 

determine whether Dr. Makoroff's opinion was determined within a reasonable degree of 

medical certainty. Partin claims additional prejudice because the state highlighted Dr. 

Makoroff's opinion during closing argument. 

{¶50} Dr. Makoroff's opinion letter was dated December 14, 2018, and there is no 

dispute that it was provided to the defense in a timely manner. The letter indicated that Dr. 

Makoroff had examined Hannah and observed multiple bruises on her face, ear, head, 

chest, bilateral flanks, back, buttock, bilateral upper extremities, and bilateral lower 

extremities. Dr. Makoroff further noted hemorrhages in both eyes, as well as subdural 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 13 - 

bleeding in the brain, shifting of one part of the brain to the other, and brain swelling. The 

letter indicated that Hannah's presentation was inconsistent with a fall or even multiple falls 

and that the severity of her injuries indicated that she would not have been acting normally 

and would have become symptomatic and nonresponsive shortly after receiving the injury. 

Ultimately, Dr. Makoroff offered her diagnosis of physical abuse, including abusive head 

injury. 

{¶51} At trial, during direct testimony, Dr. Makoroff reviewed the medical file 

photographs taken of Hannah that depicted bruising over various parts of her body. Dr. 

Makoroff indicated those bruises which were of concern to her, including the bruises on the 

upper and lower eyelids, the bruising underneath the chin, a left ear bruise, bruises on the 

chest, on the flanks, arms, and buttock. Dr. Makoroff noted that the extent of some bruises 

made them appear less accidental, and that the bruises had occurred on "multiple planes" 

of Hannah's body was also very concerning for child abuse and that a couple areas of 

buttock bruising appeared to have "some pattern to it." Ultimately, in conjunction with the 

other medical evidence including the injuries to Hannah's eyes and brain, and Hannah's 

autopsy report, Dr. Makoroff opined, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that 

Hannah's injuries were nonaccidental and her diagnoses were child physical abuse and 

abusive head trauma. 

{¶52} On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Dr. Makoroff if she agreed that 

her opinion testimony on direct included opinions "about the location and pattern of bruises 

on Hannah's body." Dr. Makoroff confirmed she had testified in that manner with respect 

to some of the bruises. Upon further questioning, Dr. Makoroff confirmed that her testimony 

concerning bruising "was very detailed." Defense counsel then confronted Dr. Makoroff 

with her opinion letter and asked whether she discussed "patterns of bruises" or "locations 

of bruises" in her letter. Dr. Makoroff confirmed that she had not used those words but 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 14 - 

argued that they were encompassed within her opinion letter. 

{¶53} During this questioning, the state objected, and a side-bar discussion ensued. 

Defense counsel moved to strike Dr. Makoroff's testimony, arguing that it was a new opinion 

outside of the opinion letter. After hearing argument from both sides, the court indicated 

that it did not agree that Dr. Makoroff's testimony constituted a new opinion, that Dr. 

Makoroff had not deviated from her ultimate opinion, and therefore the court would not strike 

her testimony. 

{¶54} Crim.R. 16 governs discovery in criminal proceedings. Crim.R. 16(K) 

addresses expert witnesses and expert witness reports. The rule provides: 

An expert witness for either side shall prepare a written report 

summarizing the expert witness's testimony, findings, analysis,

conclusions, or opinion, and shall include a summary of the 

expert's qualifications. The written report and summary of 

qualifications shall be subject to disclosure under this rule no 

later than twenty-one days prior to trial, which period may be 

modified by the court for good cause shown, which does not 

prejudice any other party. Failure to disclose the written report 

to opposing counsel shall preclude the expert's testimony at 

trial. 

{¶55} Recently, The Ohio Supreme Court construed Crim.R. 16(K) in an appeal 

from a murder conviction where the trial court admitted expert opinions not previously 

disclosed in writing. State v. Boaston, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1061. In Boaston, the 

state provided the defense with a deputy coroner's autopsy report more than one year prior 

to the trial. Id. at ¶ 38. The autopsy report detailed the coroner's factual findings with 

respect to the autopsy, including the appearance and weight of the contents of the victim's 

stomach, but did not include the deputy coroner's opinion as to the victim's time of death 

based on those findings. Id. The report also did not contain a written opinion concerning

whether the buckle of a glove found in the defendant's possession could have caused a 

distinct abrasion found below the victim's chin. Id. at ¶ 39. 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 15 - 

{¶56} The deputy coroner met with defense counsel 19 days before trial and shared 

her opinions as to time of death and as to the consistency between the glove buckle and 

abrasion. Id. at ¶ 40. Defense counsel then suggested that the state file a supplemental 

report, but the state did not. Id. 

{¶57} At trial, defense counsel moved to exclude the deputy coroner's opinion 

testimony for the failure to file a written report containing the expert's opinion within 21 days 

of the trial as required by Crim.R. 16(K). Id. at ¶ 41. The trial court overruled the objection 

and permitted the opinion testimony, noting that the defense had the autopsy report well 

before trial and that defense counsel had chosen to meet with deputy coroner 19 days 

before trial. Id. The court of appeals affirmed based partially on the trial court's broad 

discretion concerning the admission of evidence. 2017-Ohio-8770, ¶ 49. 

{¶58} The Ohio Supreme Court reversed. The court found that the autopsy report 

"did not contain all the opinions that the state ultimately sought to elicit from the deputy 

coroner at trial." Id. at ¶ 47. The court proceeded to construe whether Crim.R. 16(K) 

required the exclusion of the deputy coroner's testimony, which went beyond that contained 

in the autopsy report. Id. 

{¶59} The court noted that the underlying purpose of Crim.R. 16(K) was to "'avoid 

unfair surprise by providing notice to the defense and allowing the defense an opportunity 

to challenge the expert's findings, analysis, or qualifications, possibly with the support of an 

adverse expert who could discredit the opinion after carefully reviewing the written report.'" 

Id. at ¶ 48, quoting State v. Perry, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-125, 2012-Ohio-4888, ¶ 55. 

Next, the court found a split within the courts of appeals as to the effect of noncompliance 

with Crim.R. 16(K). Id. at ¶ 51. This court and others have found that a trial court retained 

discretion to admit expert opinion testimony despite technical noncompliance with Crim.R. 

16(K). Id., citing State v. Retana, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-12-225, 2012-Ohio-5608, ¶ 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 16 - 

53-54. Other courts of appeals concluded that Crim.R. 16(K) removed a trial court's 

discretion and mandated the exclusion of opinion evidence when a written report had not 

been disclosed in accordance with the rule. Id. at ¶ 52. 

{¶60} Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the plain language of Crim.R. 

16(K) dictated the result: "[f]ailure to disclose the written report to opposing counsel shall 

preclude the expert's testimony at trial." (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 55. The court held that 

it was error to allow opinion testimony that "went beyond the scope" of the autopsy report. 

Id. at ¶ 58. The court then proceeded to examine the issue under a harmless-error analysis 

and determined that the error in Boaston's case did not require reversal under Crim.R. 52. 

Id. at ¶ 70. 

{¶61} Boaston is distinguishable. Unlike the deputy coroner's autopsy report, which 

contained only factual findings, Dr. Makoroff's opinion letter contained both the facts upon 

which she relied, and the opinion derived from those facts, within a reasonable degree of 

medical certainty. Dr. Makoroff's testimony at trial also did not go beyond the scope of her 

opinion letter or her medical notes. Dr. Makoroff's opinion letter and notes of her medical 

exam indicated with specificity each and every location where she noted bruising on 

Hannah's body. Her opinion letter indicated that these observations, in conjunction with 

Hannah's other medical conditions, led to her opinion that Hannah was the victim of child 

physical abuse. It was only on cross-examination that defense counsel characterized Dr. 

Makoroff's opinion as focusing on "locations" and "patterns" of the bruises as indicative of 

child abuse. 

{¶62} Dr. Makoroff's trial testimony added some detail to the summary nature of the 

opinion letter. However, Crim.R. 16(K) only requires a summary of the expert opinion. And 

Dr. Makoroff's testimony at trial explaining her opinion was not such an elaboration that it 

could be said to have caused unfair surprise. In this regard, the defense was aware that 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 17 - 

Dr. Makoroff believed that the extent of bruising on Hannah was indicative of nonaccidental 

child abuse. The defense therefore could have sought an expert to testify as to a 

nonabusive cause of the extensive bruising found on Hannah's body. 

{¶63} And even if this court were to instead find that Dr. Makoroff's testimony went 

beyond the scope of her opinion letter, for the reasons discussed more fully in response to 

the fifth assignment of error, any error would be harmless. Multiple other physicians 

submitted corroborating expert opinions as to the nonaccidental nature of Hannah's injuries. 

And the state submitted significant other evidence inculpating Partin in the offenses, most 

notably through Partin's own statements. This court overrules Partin's first assignment of 

error. 

{¶64} Assignment of Error No. 2: 

{¶65} THE STATE VIOLATED CRIM.R. 16 AND PREJUDICED THE DEFENDANT 

WHEN IT FAILED TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION THAT IT HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT 

ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WAS WITH [HANNAH] HOURS BEFORE SHE COLLAPSED

FROM INTERNAL INJURIES, AND THAT IT KNEW [HANNAH'S] FATHER HAD LIED TO 

INVESTIGATORS FOR OVER A YEAR. 

{¶66} Partin argues that the state violated the criminal discovery rules and 

prejudiced her right to a fair trial when it failed to disclose that Jason lied to detectives about 

his whereabouts on the evening of March 7, 2018, and that a friend, Chris, was at his home 

on March 7, 2018. Partin asks that this court reverse her conviction and remand for a new 

trial. 

{¶67} At trial, the evidence revealed that Jason initially told investigators that he and 

Hannah went to Wal-Mart on the evening of March 7, 2018 and purchased milk. However, 

detectives found no milk in the Wesche home. Detective Turner testified that he noted this 

discrepancy early in the investigation. Upon further investigation, detectives found no 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 18 - 

evidence that Jason had travelled to Wal-Mart that evening. Detective Turner testified that 

he subsequently determined that the discrepancy was not an issue, that Jason had not lied, 

but also that he had not gone to Wal-Mart or purchased milk that evening. 

{¶68} When Jason testified, he explained that he recalled telling detectives that he 

had gone out to purchase milk but explained that he was confused at the time. He had 

meant to get milk but had not. Two days prior to his testimony, after speaking with Chris, 

Jason recalled that Chris was staying at his home on March 7, 2018. 

{¶69} Jason then recalled that on the evening of March 7, he picked up Hannah 

from Partin's house at around 7:00 p.m. He and Hannah then drove Chris back to Chris' 

home in Fairfield. It took approximately one hour to drive to Fairfield, drop Chris off, and 

drive back.3 Jason testified that he told Detective Turner about his recollection about Chris 

Davis and his activities that evening for the first time on April 8, 2019, or the day before his 

testimony for the state. 

{¶70} Partin does not cite which provision of Crim.R. 16 the state allegedly violated 

but presumably she refers to Crim.R. 16(B)(5), which requires that the prosecutor, upon 

written demand, provide copies of "[a]ny evidence favorable to the defendant and material 

to guilt or punishment * * *." And with respect to discovery violations in criminal proceedings, 

Crim.R. 16(L)(1) provides: 

The trial court may make orders regulating discovery not 

inconsistent with this rule. If at any time during the course of the 

proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party 

has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued 

pursuant to this rule, the court may order such party to permit

the discovery or inspection, grant a continuance, or prohibit the 

party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or 

it may make such other order as it deems just under the 

circumstances. 

 

3. Jason's claim as to his travel that evening was corroborated by a neighbor who lived on Shank Road and 

testified that she observed that Jason's car was not parked at 4004 Shank Road when she drove by at 8:00 

p.m., but was parked at 8:40 p.m. 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 19 - 

{¶71} Prosecutorial violations of Crim.R. 16 are reversible only when there is a 

showing that (1) the prosecution's failure to disclose was a willful violation of the rule, (2) 

foreknowledge of the information would have benefited the accused in the preparation of 

his defense, and (3) the accused suffered some prejudicial effect." State v. Joseph, 73 

Ohio St.3d 450, 458 (1995). 

{¶72} At trial, Partin did not raise any issue of a willful failure to disclose by the state, 

nor is there any evidence in the record to support such an assertion. Partin argues that 

foreknowledge that Jason had not gone to Wal-Mart and instead had taken Chris home, 

and that Chris had been at 4004 Shank Road on March 7, 2018, would have benefitted her 

defense because it would have led to a significantly different trial strategy. Presumably, 

Partin is arguing that she would have modified her trial strategy to expand the list of 

alternative suspects to include Chris. 

{¶73} However, the presence of Chris at 4004 Shank Road on March 7, 2018 was 

inconsequential given the evidence in this case. Both Partin and Jason testified that 

Hannah was acting completely normal that morning.4 The medical evidence established 

that Hannah would not have been walking, talking, kissing and hugging, and otherwise 

acting normally after receiving the injuries that led to her death. The evidence 

overwhelmingly established that the injuries suffered by Hannah had to have occurred in 

the short window of time after Jason left Hannah with Partin. Thus, the medical evidence, 

and Partin's own statements, served to exonerate both Jason and Chris as potential 

suspects. For these reasons, this court finds that the information concerning Jason's 

whereabouts on March 7 or that Chris was staying at the home on March 7, was immaterial 

 

4. In fact, in every version of events relayed by Partin to emergency responders and investigators, Hannah 

was acting normal upon her arrival at 4050 Shank Road. 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 20 - 

and had no prejudicial effect on Partin's substantial rights. Consequently, this court 

overrules Partin's second assignment of error. 

{¶74} Assignment of Error No. 3: 

{¶75} THE DEFENDANT RECEIVED CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 

{¶76} Partin argues that her attorneys provided her with constitutionally deficient 

legal representation where they failed to move to suppress her interviews with investigators 

and failed to object or move for a continuance when the undisclosed information about 

Jason's whereabouts and Chris Davis was revealed during Jason's testimony. To prevail 

on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Partin must show her trial counsels' 

performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced her defense. 

State v. Clarke, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-11-189, 2016-Ohio-7187, ¶ 49; Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). Trial counsel's performance will 

not be deemed deficient unless it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. 

Strickland at 688. To show prejudice, Partin must establish that, but for her trial counsels' 

errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result of her trial would have been different. 

Id. at 694. The failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim. Clarke at ¶ 49. Counsel is strongly presumed to have 

rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of 

reasonable professional judgment. State v. Burns, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2013-10-019, 

2014-Ohio-4625, ¶ 7. 

{¶77} Partin argues that her attorneys' trial strategy focused on the alleged "coercive 

nature" of the second interview. Partin contends that despite this strategy, her attorneys 

did not move to suppress the interview on the grounds that her confession was obtained 

through coercive police tactics. Partin argues that her admissions in the interview were a 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 21 - 

key aspect of the state's case against her and therefore there is a substantial likelihood of 

a changed outcome at trial if the court had excluded the interview. 

{¶78} In support of this argument, Partin cites case law standing for the general 

proposition that confessions obtained through threatening or coercive police tactics are 

unconstitutional. However, Partin does not articulate how her interview was coercive or 

present any argument indicating why a motion to suppress in her case would have been 

successful. 

{¶79} This court has reviewed the recording of the second interview and does not 

agree that the detectives acted coercively in obtaining Partin's confession. The detectives 

informed Partin of her Miranda rights at the beginning of both interviews and she executed 

Miranda waiver forms indicating she understood her right not to speak to investigators. 

While the two detectives repeatedly pressed Partin to tell them the truth about what 

happened that morning and informed her that her version of events did not match what 

Hannah's doctors were informing them, neither the detectives' behavior nor demeanor 

escalated to anything approaching threatening or coercive. To the contrary, both detectives 

used the tactic of conveying sympathy and understanding as to why Partin may have been 

so frustrated with Hannah's "mischievous" behavior, and with personal problems in Partin's 

life, that she could have harmed Hannah. Partin's eventual confessions to acts harming 

Hannah were detailed and were not the product of suggestion, coercion, or threatening law 

enforcement tactics. 

{¶80} In addition, Partin testified that she gave the detectives a false confession in 

order to "protect everyone." She did not claim that she gave a false confession because 

the two detectives coerced her. For the foregoing reasons, Partin has not demonstrated 

that her attorneys provided constitutionally deficient legal assistance based upon an alleged 

failure to file a motion to suppress her interview. 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 22 - 

{¶81} Next, Partin argues that her attorneys provided ineffective assistance by 

failing to object to Jason's testimony about his whereabouts on March 7 and Chris Davis. 

Partin argues that Jason's testimony should have been objected to immediately for the 

same reasons set forth in the second assignment of error and that trial counsel should have 

sought a continuance of the trial. Partin argues that the disclosure that another individual 

was staying with Jason and Hannah at 4004 Shank Road on March 7, 2018, could have 

substantially affected the defense theory of the case. 

{¶82} However, for the same reasons discussed in response to Partin's second 

assignment of error, whether Jason drove to Wal-Mart or drove with Chris and Hannah to 

Fairfield, and whether Chris stayed at the home on March 7 was ultimately immaterial to 

the state's case. Consequently, Partin cannot demonstrate any reasonable probability of a 

changed outcome at trial but for her attorneys objecting to Jason's testimony, or seeking a 

continuance. This court overrules Partin's third assignment of error. 

{¶83} Assignment of Error No. 4: 

{¶84} THE PROSECUTION PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO 

SUPPORT THE JURY'S FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS GUILTY OF CHILD 

ENDANGERING, INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, AND MURDER. 

{¶85} Partin argues that the state presented insufficient evidence to support her 

convictions. A sufficiency of the evidence challenge involves the determination of whether 

the conviction can be supported as a matter of law. State v. Richardson, 150 Ohio St.3d 

554, 2016-Ohio-8448, ¶ 13. The standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence 

challenge is whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, could have found the essential elements of the crime proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Beverly, 143 Ohio St.3d 258, 2015-Ohio-219, ¶ 15. 

Inference Stacking 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 23 - 

{¶86} Partin argues that her convictions on all six counts resulted from 

impermissible inference stacking. "Impermissible inference stacking" involves drawing an 

inference based entirely upon another inference, unsupported by any additional facts or 

another inference derived from facts. State v. Braden, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2013-12-

012, 2014-Ohio-3385, ¶ 12. The rule is "extremely limited" and does not prohibit drawing 

parallel inferences in combination with additional facts or drawing multiple, separate 

inferences from the same facts. Id. at ¶ 12-13. 

{¶87} With respect to counts one and two, i.e., the child endangering counts alleged 

to have occurred between March 6 and 7, 2018, Partin argues that because Jason testified 

that Hannah told him about falling on gravel, the jury then had to infer that Hannah lied to 

Jason about falling. Partin also argues the jury had to infer the bruises on Hannah's body 

were from Partin committing acts of torture or cruel abuse, or excessive corporal 

punishment. 

{¶88} The jury did not have to stack inferences to conclude that Partin committed 

acts of torture, cruel abuse, or excessive corporal punishment against Hannah between 

March 6 and 7, 2018.5 During the second interview, Partin confessed to physically 

disciplining Hannah with a slap "upside the head." She demonstrated two forceful uppercut 

motions to Hannah's chin with her fist in a clawed position. Partin further demonstrated 

aggressively poking Hannah's chest. The state submitted sufficient evidence of acts of 

torture, cruel abuse, and excessive corporal punishment for purposes of Partin's convictions 

on counts one and two. 

{¶89} With respect to the remaining counts, Partin argues that the jury had to infer 

that Hannah's brain injuries occurred in the brief time she was in Partin's care that morning 

 

5. R.C. 2919.22(B)(2) and (B)(3). 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 24 - 

and not while she was in Jason's care, that the jury had to further infer that Jason was telling 

the truth that Hannah was healthy before being dropped off with Partin, and that the jury 

had to further infer that Partin was so angry and distraught over her personal circumstances 

that she "snapped" and caused fatal trauma to Hannah. However, none of these potential 

conclusions by the jury would require the impermissible stacking of inferences. The jury 

could find from Jason's and Partin's testimony that Hannah was walking, talking, and acting 

normally when dropped off by Jason. The jury could conclude that Hannah's injuries 

occurred while in Partin's care given the medical evidence and Partin's admissions. Finally, 

the jury could accept Partin's statements during the second interview concerning her mind 

state to explain her motivation in harming Hannah that morning. 

Count Three – Child Endangering 

{¶90} Partin argues that the state submitted insufficient evidence to convict her of 

count three, i.e., child endangering in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A), alleged to have occurred 

on March 8, 2018. On this count, the state had to prove that Partin, as a person having 

custody or control, or person in loco parentis of a child under eighteen years of age, created 

a substantial risk to the health or safety of Hannah, by violating a duty of care, protection, 

or support. 

{¶91} Partin does not articulate which element of the offense she claims that the 

state failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove. Instead, she states that Hannah was at 

her home for approximately two minutes before Hannah collapsed and that she immediately 

contacted Jason. The state submitted sufficient evidence to support this count. Partin 

admitted to detectives that in the brief time she had Hannah, she shook her until she 

stopped whining, squeezed her, and dropped her, and then shook her again, all of which a 

rational factfinder could find created a substantial risk to Hannah's health and safety. 

Count Four – Involuntary Manslaughter 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 25 - 

{¶92} Partin argues that the state submitted insufficient evidence of involuntary 

manslaughter when it could not prove how Hannah's injuries occurred. The state was 

required to prove that Partin caused Hannah's death as a proximate result of Partin 

committing or attempting to commit a felony. R.C. 2903.04(A). Partin argues that the state 

"admitted it did not know how the internal brain injuries occurred" during closing argument, 

and therefore the state failed to put on any evidence of causation. 

{¶93} The state presented sufficient medical evidence establishing the cause of 

Hannah's death, which Dr. Dean described as a tremendous force that went through 

Hannah's brain, causing a shearing injury and traumatic brain injury. The state's other 

expert witness testified that Hannah's injuries were nonaccidental, child physical abuse, 

and that shaking alone could have caused the injuries. Partin admitted shaking Hannah, 

among other acts. The foregoing constituted sufficient evidence to allow rational factfinders 

to find that Partin caused Hannah's death by engaging in acts constituting felony child 

endangering on March 8, 2018. 

Count Five – Child Endangering 

{¶94} For this count, the state was required to prove that Partin abused Hannah on 

March 8, 2018, which abuse resulted in serious physical harm. R.C. 2919.22(B)(1) and 

(E)(1)(d). Partin reiterates the same argument concerning causation set forth in the prior 

section on involuntary manslaughter. For the reasons discussed previously, the state put 

on sufficient evidence to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that Partin abused 

Hannah, which abuse caused serious physical harm, i.e. Hannah's death. 

Count Six – Murder 

{¶95} For this final count, the state was required to prove that Partin caused 

Hannah's death as the proximate result of committing an offense of violence that is a felony 

of the first or second degree (count five, child endangering, a second degree felony). Again, 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 26 - 

Partin reiterates her argument that the state failed to put on sufficient evidence of causation. 

For the same reasons stated before, this court finds that the state submitted sufficient 

evidence to allow a factfinder to conclude that Partin was guilty of murder. This court 

overrules Partin's fourth assignment of error. 

{¶96} Assignment of Error No. 5: 

{¶97} THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS FOR CHILD ENDANGERING, 

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, AND MURDER WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶98} Partin argues that the greater weight of the evidence supported a not guilty 

verdict on all six counts. Partin contends that Jason testified that he had no concerns with 

Partin as Hannah's caregiver, that he had seen bruises on Hannah's body, and that Hannah 

told him the bruises were from falling. Partin further argues that the narrow time frame and 

the state's lack of evidence as to the precise mechanism of Hannah's injury demonstrated 

a lack of credibility in the state's evidence. Partin also points to evidence indicating that 

Hannah exhibited "uncommon behavior" on the morning of March 8, including climbing into 

the back of Jason's vehicle and asking for additional hugs and kisses from her father. 

Finally, Partin argues that Jason's testimony that he had not gone to Wal-Mart and had a 

friend staying with him the day before Hannah's collapse created an inference that Hannah 

was suffering from internal injuries before she arrived at Partin's home that morning. 

{¶99} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence, the appeals court reviews the trial record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable 

inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether, in resolving 

conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest 

miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State 

v. Cummings, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-09-224, 2007-Ohio-4970, ¶ 12. While an 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 27 - 

appellate court considers the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given the 

evidence, "these issues are primarily matters for the trier of fact to decide since the trier of 

fact is in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given 

the evidence presented." State v. Walker, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-04-085, 2007-

Ohio-911, ¶ 25, citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967). The discretionary power 

to overturn a conviction based on the manifest weight of the evidence is to be invoked only 

in those extraordinary circumstances to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice where the 

evidence presented weighs heavily in favor of acquittal. Id.

{¶100} This is not a case where the evidence weighed heavily in favor of acquittal. 

Even by Partin's own varying accounts of what occurred that morning, Hannah arrived at 

4050 Shank Road in a normal condition. Partin even observed that Hannah appeared better 

than she had the day before. That Hannah decided she wanted to ride in the back seat of 

Jason's vehicle and give her father extra affection does not indicate "uncommon behavior" 

that would call into question the credibility of the state's evidence. 

{¶101} After Hannah collapsed, Partin repeatedly disclaimed any knowledge of 

anything happening to Hannah inside the Partin residence. However, the medical evidence, 

presented through multiple expert opinions by physicians of various specialties, 

demonstrated that Hannah had to have suffered traumatic, violent injuries in the time 

between when Jason left the garage and when Partin called Jason to report that something 

was wrong with Hannah. And while that window of time was brief, the evidence did not 

indicate that the injuries that occurred to Hannah would have taken a substantial time to 

complete. Hannah's final accounting to detectives of what occurred that morning would fit 

within the probable time frame. In this regard, Partin confessed in detail to shaking, 

squeezing, and dropping Hannah because she was frustrated at Hannah's regular behavior 

of whining as her father left for work. Partin further confessed to physically abusing Hannah 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 28 - 

on the days leading up to March 8. 

{¶102} Other actions taken by Partin during the investigation further implicated her. 

From the onset, Partin made certain to inform the 9-1-1 dispatcher, emergency responders, 

and detectives, that Hannah "fell pretty bad yesterday." During the interview, Partin 

repeatedly altered her story about what happened to Hannah and later claimed she lied 

about detailed aspects of the abuse perpetrated on Hannah. Partin twice deleted internet 

searches for "how to get rid of a bruise." And while alone in the interview room on March 

8, before detectives had confronted her with the opinion of the medical experts, and before 

Partin had made any inculpatory statements to detectives, Partin announced to herself that 

she was going to prison for the rest of her life. Partin's convictions were supported by the 

greater weight of the evidence. This court overrules Partin's fifth assignment of error. 

{¶103} Assignment of Error No. 6: 

{¶104} THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE VIOLENT OFFENDER 

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT TO THE DEFENDANT'S CASE VIOLATES THE EX 

POST FACTO CLAUSE AND THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. 

{¶105} Partin argues that the court violated her federal and Ohio constitutional rights 

by informing her of her duty to register under the violent offender registration scheme set 

forth in R.C. 2903.41 through 2903.44, also known as Sierah's Law. Partin argues that the 

current version of R.C. 2903.41 did not exist when she was indicted, and therefore the 

application of Sierah's Law during sentencing violated her rights. 

{¶106} After the parties filed their briefs in this case, this court issued an opinion in 

another case addressing an identical argument. State v. Hubbard, 12th Dist. Butler No. 

CA2019-05-086, 2020-Ohio-856, appeal accepted, 159 Ohio St.3d 1427, 2020-Ohio-3473. 

In Hubbard, this court determined that the General Assembly plainly intended for Sierah's 

Law to apply to conduct occurring before the statute's effective date and that the statute 
Butler CA2019-05-079 

- 29 - 

was remedial, not substantive, and therefore passed constitutional muster. Id. at ¶ 24, 37. 

As of the date of this opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court has not issued an opinion on the 

Hubbard appeal. This court does not find any cause to reconsider the precedent set forth 

in Hubbard. Accordingly, this court overrules Partin's sixth assignment of error on the basis 

set forth in Hubbard. 

{¶107} Assignment of Error No. 7: 

{¶108} THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ERRORS IN DEFENDANT'S TRIAL 

DEPRIVED HER OF A FAIR TRIAL. 

{¶109} Partin argues that if this court determines that the errors that occurred in her 

trial were harmless, then the cumulative effect of all the errors deprived her of a fair trial and 

her conviction should be reversed. For the reasons discussed in response to Partin's first 

through sixth assignments of error, this court does not find error in Partin's trial and does 

not find that she was deprived of a fair trial. This court overrules Partin's seventh 

assignment of error. 

{¶110} Judgment affirmed. 

 M. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.