[Cite as State v. Hall, 2012-Ohio-1051.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 97035 

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

ADAM D. HALL

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-541951 

BEFORE: Rocco, J., Blackmon, A.J., and Celebrezze, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 15, 2012 

-i-
2

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Thomas A. Rein 

Leader Building, Suite 940 

526 Superior Avenue 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Brian M. McDonough 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
3

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Adam Hall appeals from his conviction after 

a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. 

{¶2} Hall presents two assignments of error. He claims his conviction 

is not supported by either sufficient evidence or the manifest weight of the 

evidence. Upon a review of the record, this court cannot agree with Hall’s 

claims. Consequently, his conviction is affirmed. 

{¶3} The victim, L.A., provided the following description of the events 

leading to Hall’s conviction. 

{¶4} L.A., a young, single mother, first met Hall in 2008 and the two of 

them had a sexual relationship for a time until Hall left the area. A few 

months later, L.A. became involved with a new man; she moved in with him 

and bore this man’s child, L.A.’s second, in early 2010. 

{¶5} Hall returned to the Cleveland area in June 2010. At that time, 

L.A.’s new relationship was under strain, and she was living with relatives. 

She began to see Hall again “[a]lmost daily.” L.A. described her relationship 

with Hall as “sex friends.” 

{¶6} At the end of the summer, her infant’s father persuaded L.A. to 

return to his home. L.A. told Hall that she no longer wanted to see him. 
4

However, L.A. nevertheless permitted Hall to visit her on at least two 

occasions when the father of her infant was not at home. On August 19, 

2010, L.A. also met Hall at “his sister’s” residence for a sexual encounter with 

him. 

{¶7} On the afternoon of August 31, 2010, L.A. awoke from sleep to see 

Hall standing in her bedroom doorway. L.A. “lit a cigarette” and asked him 

how he had gotten inside. Although she had not heard him, because the air 

conditioning unit had been removed from the bedroom window, L.A. surmised 

Hall made his entry there. 

{¶8} After L.A. put on the television for her older child and gave a 

bottle to the infant, Hall drew her into the living room. The two of them sat 

next to each other on the couch, and Hall “pleaded for [her] to get back with 

him.” Although they spoke for nearly “an hour,” L.A. “told him no,” and “told 

him he had to leave.” Hall asked her if she would “at least sleep with him” 

one last time. L.A. refused. 

{¶9} At that point, Hall became “pushy and started grabbing, like 

touching” L.A. “[b]etween [her] legs” and on her “inner thigh and [her] 

vaginal area” as he asked her to “give him some.” He became “[s]lowly 

angrier,” causing L.A. to become “fearful of him.” L.A. resisted, but Hall 
5

“kept persisting.” L.A. eventually arose, telling Hall she wanted to go to the 

bathroom. 

{¶10} Hall followed her, propelled her from behind, and once they both 

were inside the bathroom, shoved her down onto the toilet seat. While 

asking L.A. to “just give him five minutes,” Hall tried to take her pants and 

panties off. She struggled, but Hall was successful in exposing her; he 

“performed oral sex on” L.A. 

{¶11} Thereafter, by thrusting her hands into Hall’s face, L.A. 

managed to rise, but Hall “tried to like wrestle [her] to the floor.” Once L.A. 

was face down on the bathroom floor with her “knees bent,” Hall “had 

intercourse” with her. L.A. felt “disgusted.” Hall exited the house shortly 

afterward, but helped L.A. to pull the air conditioning unit into the bedroom 

before he left her. 

{¶12} L.A. reported the incident to the police and proceeded to the 

hospital for treatment. As a result, Hall was indicted in this case on four 

counts, charged with aggravated burglary, kidnapping, rape, and gross sexual 

imposition. 

{¶13} Hall’s case proceeded to a jury trial. After considering the 

evidence, the jury acquitted Hall of the first three counts, but found him 

guilty of gross sexual imposition. 
6

{¶14} Hall appeals from his conviction with two assignments of error 

as follows: 

“I. The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for 

acquittal as to the charge when the state failed to present sufficient 

evidence to sustain a conviction. 

“II. Appellant’s conviction is against the manifest weight of 

the evidence.”

{¶15} Hall asserts in his first assignment of error that L.A.’s testimony 

was “an outright, unbelievable lie” that was unsupported because she 

displayed no physical injuries. This argument, however, relates to credibility 

and weight, which are not appropriate subjects for a sufficiency analysis. 

{¶16} In determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient to 

support the jury verdict as a matter of law, “[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.” State v. Robinson, 124 Ohio St.3d 76, 

2009-Ohio-5937, 919 N.E.2d 190, ¶ 34, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 

259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. 

{¶17} Hall was charged with gross sexual imposition in violation of 

R.C. 2907.05(A)(1), which prohibits a person from having sexual contact with 
7

another, “not his spouse, by purposely compelling such person to submit by 

force or threat of force.” 

{¶18} Sexual contact is defined as “any touching of an erogenous zone 

of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic 

region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually 

arousing or gratifying either person.” R.C. 2907.01(B). 

{¶19} According to L.A., as they sat next to each other on the couch, 

Hall began to touch her thighs and vaginal area. L.A. indicated Hall did so 

despite her resistance, and while telling her he wanted her to sleep with him 

one last time. Viewing L.A.’s testimony in a light most favorable to the 

prosecution, the jury could have found the state established the elements of 

gross sexual imposition. State v. Alsip, 8th Dist. No. 93105, 2010-Ohio-1757, 

¶ 14. 

{¶20} Hall argues in his second assignment of error that the manifest 

weight of the evidence does not support his conviction. 

{¶21} The test to be applied when reviewing a claim that a conviction is 

against the manifest weight of the evidence was set forth in State v. 

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). The test is “much 

broader” than the test for sufficiency; i.e., this court reviews the entire record 

to determine whether in resolving any conflicts in the evidence, the 
8

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. Martin, 21 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1983). 

{¶22} Moreover, this court must remain mindful that the weight of the 

evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are matters primarily for the 

trier of fact to assess. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 

(1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. 

{¶23} Although Hall argues L.A.’s testimony was simply not worthy of 

belief, the jury clearly considered her credibility carefully. The jury 

obviously determined that, at least initially, Hall forced himself on L.A. when 

he began touching her erogenous areas. Because the jury was in the position 

to evaluate L.A.’s demeanor as she recounted the incident, this court cannot 

substitute its judgment for that of the jury. State v. Wilson, 8th Dist. No. 

96627, 2011-Ohio-6886, ¶ 35. 

{¶24} Accordingly, Hall’s assignments of error are overruled. 

{¶25} His conviction is affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s 
9

conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. 

Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to 

Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

______________________________ 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J., and 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR