[Cite as State v. Wolters , 2022-Ohio-538.]

COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. -vs- Case No. 21CA000008 RONALD WOLTERS Defendant-Appellant O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 20-CR-64

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: Februar y 24, 2022

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellan t

JASON R. FARLEY MARK E. KAIDO Assistant Guernse y Count y Prosecuto r Gottlieb, Johnson, Beam & 627 Wheelin g Avenue Dal Ponte, LLC

– Attorne y s at Law Cambrid g e, Ohio 43725 320 Main Stree t P.O. Box 190 Zanesville, Ohio 43701Guernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 2

Hoffman, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Ronald L. Wolters appeals the judgment ente red by the Guernsey County Common Pleas Court convicting him of three counts of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)) and eight counts of gross sexual imposition ( R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)) and sentencing him to an aggregate term of incarceration of life im prisonment with parole eligibility after seventy-five years. Plaintiff-appellee is th e state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶2} Appellant is the step-grandfather of the five-year-old victim i n this case. Appellant and his wife sometimes provided childcare for the vic tim, and the victim called them “nana” and “pap pap.” The victim had her own room in Appe llant’s home. The victim’s mother did not have a driver’s license, and Appellant and his wife often provided transportation for the victim and her mother. {¶3} During the summer of 2019, the victim returned home from spendi ng the weekend at Appellant’s house. When her mother asked how the we ekend went, the victim did not answer. The next day, the victim told her mothe r Appellant “put his wee

wee in her cookie.” Tr. 730. The victim’s mother called their family doctor, and was instructed to take the victim to Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus for an examination. The victim’s mother failed to do so, lacking tran sportation other than Appellant and his wife. {¶4} After the disclosure of sexual activity with Appellant, the vic tim’s mother began noticing the victim touching her vaginal area on top of h er clothes. About six weeks after the victim disclosed the incident to her mother, the vict im was both physically examined and interviewed at the Guernsey County Children’s Advo cacy Center.Guernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 3

{¶5} The victim was interviewed by Kristine Myers. The victim told Myers she did not want Appellant to get beat up in jail. When asked if a nyone had touched her private parts, the victim said pap pap has touched her “cootie, ” pointing to her vaginal area. The victim told Myers she plays “tinkle man” with Appell ant when they are having sex. The victim said Appellant’s “tinkle” is his arm or hand, which he puts on her back when they have sex. The victim stated Appellant touched her va gina with his finger, on the inside. She also stated Appellant touched the inside of he r vagina with his penis. She stated she did not have on any clothes when Appellant touch ed her vagina. When asked how many times Appellant had sex with her, the victim hel d her hands about shoulder distance apart, without stating a number. The victim said they had sex “a lot” of times. The victim stated Appellant had sex with her in her roo m at his house, and also in nana’s room. She stated Appellant had his shirt on but not his pants. He would lay down on the bed, and she would get on top. Appellant then had “ejec tions” on his leg. In addition to touching her, Appellant had the victim rub his peni s. She and Appellant would watch television, then have more sex. {¶6} Because the victim did not tell Myers how many times they had s ex, Myers counted out ten colored pencils and asked the victim to use the pencils to count out how many times she and Appellant had sex. The victim counted out e ight colored pencils. Myers testified at trial if she could do the interview over aga in, she would not have introduced the pencils because the victim had already establish ed it happened more than one time, and Myers was unsure what would have happened had she laid out thirty pencils instead of ten pencils.Guernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 4

{¶7} Elisha Clark, a nurse practitioner at the Children’s Advocacy C enter, conducted a physical examination of the victim. The victim tol d Clark she was there because Appellant put his fingers and “pee pee” in her “cookie” at least eight different times, and grabbed her butt several times. Clark found three n otches, or partial tears, on the victim’s hymen. Using the face of a clock for reference, t he notches were found at 4:00, 6:00 and 9:00. Any notches located between 3:00 and 9:00 can be indicative of sexual abuse. Further, the victim experienced urinary incontin ence during the exam despite having used the restroom before the exam. The victim s tated this had been happening since pap pap put his wee wee in her cookie. {¶8} Appellant was indicted by the Guernsey County Grand Jury on eig ht counts of rape and eight counts of gross sexual imposition on February 26, 2020. A warrant was issued for his arrest. Lt. Sam Williams made contact with Appe llant by telephone on February 27, 2020. Appellant indicated he would turn himself i n the next day, Friday, February 28, 2020. Appellant did not turn himself in. Lt. Wil liams went to Appellant’s home on Monday. Appellant was not home, but Appellant’s wife i ndicated they were aware of the warrant and she had spoke to Appellant. Appellant turned himself in on March 5, 2020. {¶9} While in jail, Appellant made several phone calls, which were r ecorded. Appellant asked his wife to talk to the victim, and to ask her (1) did this happen every time, and (2) did grandpa ever hurt you. Appellant told his wi fe the charges included eight counts of something which never happened and seven counts which were overcharged. In a second call to his wife, Appellant asked her to find out i f the victim was saying it happened all those times or if it was the prosecutor, because i f it was the prosecutor,Guernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 5

fourteen of the sixteen counts would have to be dropped. In an other phone call to his aunt, Appellant stated fourteen of the charges did not happen. {¶10} The case proceeded to jury trial in the Guernsey County Common Pleas Court. Prior to trial, the trial court held an in camera heari ng and found the victim competent to testify at trial. The trial court allowed the vic tim to testify via closed circuit television. The victim testified at trial Appellant put his pe nis in her vagina one time, when she was five years old. She testified Appellant unbuttoned his pants, and his penis came out of his pants. She tried to get away, but he put up a baby gate to stop her. The victim testified he threw her on the bed, pushed her shins down with h is knees, and pressed his body down on top of her. She testified she told him to stop. {¶11} The jury found Appellant guilty of three of the eight rape char ges, and of all eight charges of gross sexual imposition. The trial court sent enced Appellant to a term of life imprisonment with parole eligibility in 25 years for ea ch of the three counts of rape, to be served consecutively. The trial court sentenced Appellan t to sixty months incarceration for each conviction of gross sexual imposition, t o be served concurrently to each other and concurrently to the rape sentences, for an aggre gate term of incarceration of life with parole elig ibility in 75 years. {¶12} It is from the April 8, 2021 judgment of the trial court Appell ant prosecutes this appeal, assigning as error:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S THREE CRIM. R. 29 MOTIONS FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL, SINCE THEGuernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 6

STATE FAILED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE EACH

CHARGE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE APPELLANT

GUILTY OF THREE COUNTS OF RAPE AND EIGHT COUNTS OF GROSS SEXUAL IMPOSITION, BECAUSE THE JURY’S VERDICT WAS

AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE

EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY

DETERMINING THAT N.H. WAS COM PETENT TO GIVE TESTIMONY AT

TRIAL.

IV. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED MR. WOLTERS’ RIGHT TO

CONFRONTATION BY PERMITTING N.H. TO TESTIFY VIA CLOSED CIRCUIT VIDEO WHERE THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER ORC § 2945.481(E) WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT AND

CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.

V. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND

PREJUDICED MR. WOLTERS BY GIVING AN IMPROPER

CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT JURY INSTRUCTION OVER THE

DEFENSE’S OBJECTION.

I., II.

{¶13} We address Appellant’s first and second assignments of error to gether, as they raise related issues of whether the judgment convicting Ap pellant of three counts ofGuernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 7

rape and eight counts of gross sexual imposition is against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Appellant argues the victim’s test imony was contradictory and not credible, and the evidence to support all but a single coun t of rape was insufficient, and also against the weight of the evidence. {¶14} We note at the outset the State did not provide this Court with a statement of facts in its brief, and further responded to Appellant’s arg ument without citing to facts in the record, instead arguing in conclusory fashion the judgme nt is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. 1 {¶15} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror and “i n reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers th e credibility of witnesses, and determines whether in resolving conflicts in evidence the j ury ‘clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the convict ion must be reversed and

a new trial ordered.’” State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin , 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1983). {¶16} An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the es sential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the syllabus (1991).

1 As the assigned writer of this opinion, I find Appellee’s resp onse of little, if any, value in analyzing Appellant’s first and second assignments of error.Guernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 8

{¶17} Appellant was convicted of three counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b):

(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another w ho is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offe nder but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the fo llowing applies: (b) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, wheth er or not the offender knows the age of the other person.

{¶18} “Sexual conduct” is defined by R.C. 2907.01(A):

“Sexual conduct” means vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between per sons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the inserti on, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, o r other object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, howev er slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.

{¶19} At trial, the victim testified to only one incident in which Ap pellant engaged in vaginal intercourse with her. However, the forensic intervi ew of the victim was recorded, and the video was played for the jury and admitted in to evidence at trial. During the interview, the victim stated Appellant touched her vagina w ith her finger, on the inside.Guernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 9

She also stated Appellant touched the inside of her vagina with his penis. When asked how many times Appellant had sex with her, the victim held her hands about shoulder distance apart, without stating a number. She said they had se x “a lot” of times. 2 The victim stated Appellant had sex with her in her room at his hou se, and also in nana’s room. She stated Appellant had his shirt on but not his pants. He would lay down on the bed, and she would get on top. Appellant then had “ejections” on his leg. She and Appellant would watch television, then have more sex. {¶20} While the jury may take note of inconsistencies and resolve or discount them accordingly, such inconsistencies alone do not render a co nviction against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence . State v. Craig , 10th Dist. Franklin App. No. 99AP-739, 2000 WL 297252, (Mar. 23, 2000) *3, quoting State v. Nivens , 10th Dist. Franklin App. No. 95APA09-1236, 1996 WL 284714, (May 28, 1996). In a case involving inconsistencies in the testimony of a seven-year-old child vict im, this Court noted, “The jury was free to use their life experiences in assessing the te stimony of a child verses an

adult and draw its conclusion.” State v. Allen , 5th Dist. Stark No. 2021CA00051, 2022- Ohio-268, ¶ 31. We therefore find inconsistencies in the five -year-old child victim’s statements regarding the sexual conduct does not render the jud gment against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. {¶21} Further, although not conclusive of sexual abuse, there was phy sical evidence which corroborated the jury’s finding of guilt on thre e counts of rape. Elisha Clark, a nurse practitioner at the Children’s Advocacy Center, conducted a physical examination of the victim. Clark found three notches, or parti al tears, on the victim’s

2 The victim’s statement they had sex a lot of times does not di stinguish whether the sex involved was sexual conduct or sexual contact.Guernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 10

hymen. Using the face of a clock for reference, she testified the notches were found at 4:00, 6:00 and 9:00. She testified any notches located between 3:00 and 9:00 can be indicative of sexual abuse. Further, the victim experienced ur inary incontinence during the exam despite having used the restroom before the exam. The victim stated this had been happening since pap pap put his wee wee in her cookie. Al though Appellant presented expert testimony to challenge Clark’s findings, we fi nd there was sufficient

evidence from the victim’s statements made in her forensic inte rview and the physical findings by Clark to support the convictions of three counts of rape. Further, we find the jury did not lose its way in convicting Appellant of three coun ts of rape. The judgment convicting Appellant of three counts of rape is supported by su fficient evidence, and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶22} Appellant was also convicted of eight counts of gross sexual im position in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4):

(A)No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the s pouse of the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual contact with the offender; or cause two or more other pe rsons to have sexual contact when any of the following applies: (4) The other person, or one of the other persons, is less tha n thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of that person.

{¶23} “Sexual contact” is defined by R.C. 2907.01(B):Guernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 11

“Sexual contact” means any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, butt ock, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpos e of sexually arousing or gratifying either person.

{¶24} During the forensic interview, the victim did not tell Myers ho w many times she and Appellant had sex, but rather used the general term “a lot” and held her hands about shoulder width apart when asked how many times the sexual abuse occurred. Myers counted out ten colored pencils and asked the victim to u se the pencils to count out how many times she and Appellant had sex without differenti ating between the

number of occasions when sexual conduct versus sexual contact o ccurred. The victim counted out eight colored pencils. The victim also told Clark she was at the Child Advocacy Center because Appellant put his fingers and penis in her vagina at least eight times. Myers testified at trial if she could do the interview over again, she would not have introduced the pencils because the victim had already establish ed it happened more than one time, and Myers was unsure what would have happened had she laid out thirty pencils instead of ten pencils. However, we find the victim’s statement it happened eight times is sufficient evidence, if believed by the jury, to suppo rt the convictions of eight counts of gross sexual imposition. {¶25} The jury appears to have rejected the number of “eight times,” as produced by the colored pencils and the victim’s statement to Clark, in its deliberations as to rape, convicting Appellant of three counts while acquitting him of fi ve. However, although the

victim did not differentiate between sexual conduct and sexual contact when she statedGuernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 12

she and Appellant had sex “a lot” of times, or when she stated they had sex eight different times, the jury could conclude based on her statements Appellan t engaged in sexual contact with the victim eight times, while he only engaged in s exual conduct with the victim three times, as supported by the physical evidence in the case. {¶26} The victim testified to numerous separate acts which would cons titute sexual contact but not sexual conduct. The victim stated Appel lant touched her butt “several times.” We recognize the victim did not specifically clarify whether these touchings were separate in time and distinct from the three rap e convictions. The victim also stated in her interview Appellant had her touch his penis, though again not indicating whether this touching was separate in time and distinct from th e other incidents of sexual contact. In addition, Appellant stated in his phone call to hi s wife from the jail the charges included seven counts which were overcharged. The jury could d raw the conclusion from this statement Appellant believed seven of the rape charges wer e overcharged, but impliedly admitted to engaging in sexual contact with the victi m on at least seven additional occasions. We therefore find the jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence as to eight counts of gross sexual impos ition. {¶27} The first assignment and second assignments of error are overru led.

III. {¶28} In his third assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial co urt erred in finding the victim competent to testify at trial. {¶29} Every person is competent to be a witness except those of unsou nd mind, and children under ten years of age who appear incapable of rec eiving just impressions of the facts respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly. Evid.R. 601(A).Guernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 13

{¶30} In determining whether a child under the age of ten is competen t to testify, the trial court must consider: (1) the child's ability to recei ve accurate impressions of fact or to observe acts about which he or she will testify, (2) the child's ability to recollect those impressions or observations, (3) the child's ability to communi cate what was observed, (4) the child's understanding of truth and falsity, and (5) the child's appreciation of his or her responsibility to be truthful. State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247, 574 N.E.2d 483 (1991). To reverse a finding of competency, we must find the tr ial court abused its

discretion. State v. Lewis , 4 Ohio App.3d 275, 448 N.E.2d 487 (3rd Dist. 1982). {¶31} The transcript of the in camera competency hearing was filed un der seal with this Court. Upon review of the transcript, we find the ch ild victim demonstrated an ability to receive accurate impressions of fact, was able to re collect impressions or observations, could communicate what was observed, understood t ruth and falsity, and appreciated her responsibility to be truthful. T he trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding her competent to testify. {¶32} Appellant further argues her inconsistent and contradictory tes timony at trial demonstrates she was not competent to testify. {¶33} In State v. Jones , 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2000-11-032, 2001 WL 1402638 at *6, our brethren in the Twelfth District noted:

[I]t is not the role of the trial judge to determine that ever ything a child will testify to is accurate, but whether the child has the inte llectual capacity to accurately and truthfully recount events. State v. Leach (Feb. 20, 2001), Clermont CA2000-05-033, unreported, at 5. Any inconsistencies b etweenGuernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 14

[a child's] trial testimony and the testimony of other witnesse s relate to [the child's] credibility, not [their] competency. See id.; State v. Rayburn (Apr. 24, 2000), Clinton CA99-03-005, u nreported, at 6. [The child's] credibility was for the jury's consideration.

{¶34} We agree with the reasoning of the Twelfth District, and find a ny inconsistencies and contradictions in the victim’s testimony we nt to her credibility, not to her competency. {¶35} The third assignment of error is overruled.

IV. {¶36} In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial c ourt erred and denied his right to confront witnesses against him by allowing the victim to testify via closed circuit television pursuant to R.C. 2945.481(E), which p rovides:

(E) For purposes of divisions (C) and (D) of this section, a j udge may order the testimony of a child victim to be taken outside the r oom in which the proceeding is being conducted if the judge determines that the child victim is unavailable to testify in the room in the physical pr esence of the defendant due to one or more of the following: (1) The persistent refusal of the child victim to testify desp ite judicial requests to do so;Guernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 15

(2) The inability of the child victim to communicate about the alleged violation or offense because of extreme fear, failure of memory , or another similar reason; (3) The substantial likelihood that the child victim will suff er serious emotional trauma from so testifying.

{¶37} The Ohio Supreme Court has held testimony of a child victim by videotaped deposition does not violate the Confrontation Clause, as long a s the defendant has an opportunity to view the child and the child's demeanor, and has a full opportunity to crossexamine the child. State v. Self , 56 Ohio St. 3d 73, 77, 564 N.E.2d 446 (1990). We find the procedure employed in the instant case similarly did not vi olate the Confrontation Clause, as Appellant was able to see the victim’s demeanor, and his counsel had a full opportunity to cross-examine the child. See State v. Lukacs , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C090309, 188 Ohio App.3d 597, 2010-Ohio-2364, 936 N.E.2d 506, ¶ 30 (allowing victim's brother to testify by remote video outside the courtroom did no t violate the Confrontation Clause where defendant had ample opportunity to cross-examine t he witness and see him over the live video feed). {¶38} The standard of review in determining whether a trial court has made sufficient findings under R.C. 2945.481 to permit a child to te stify via closed-circuit video is whether those findings are “supported by competent, credible evidence.” State v. Powers, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 19CA3868, 2020-Ohio-7042, ¶ 61. {¶39} After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found requiring t he victim to testify in court would further traumatize her, and would raise the risk factors for otherGuernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 16

mental distress issues, including depression and anxiety. The trial court concluded there

was a substantial likelihood the victim would suffer serious em otional harm if she testified in court in front of Appellant. {¶40} At the hearing, the State presented the testimony of Elisha Cla rk, the nurse practitioner who conducted the physical examination of the vict im. Clark observed the interview with the child. Clark testified through her training , education, and experience she learned how to identify a child who may be suffering emotio nally from having to speak about a trauma and who might be further traumatized by having t o speak about the abuse suffered. She testified such signs include a child victim unab le to use words and instead pointing to their genitals, talking about feeling sad or mad, p ointing to a doll instead of themselves, covering their face, or appearing tearful. Clark t estified during the interview, the victim in this case pointed to her genitals instead of usin g words. The victim told the interviewer when the abuse happened, it made her feel sad. In Clark’s opinion, the victim may have a hard time articulating what happened to her in front of Appellant due to the victim’s age and her relationship to Appellant. Clark further stated if the victim testified in front of Appellant, there was a substantial likelihood the vict im could suffer serious emotional trauma in the future, creating a risk of the victim l ater developing post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, or depression. {¶41} We find the trial court’s finding was supported by competent, c redible evidence presented through the testimony of Elisha Clark. The fourth assignment of error

is overruled.Guernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 17

V. {¶42} In his fifth assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial co urt erred in giving the following jury instruction on consciousness of guilt:

Now, ladies and gentlemen, testimony has been admitted indicat ing that the defendant resisted arrest by failing to turn himself i n to law enforcement despite his promise to do so. You are instructed t hat this conduct alone does not raise a presumption of guilt, but it may tend to indicate the defendant’s consciousness or awareness of guilt. If you find that the facts do not support the defendant resist ed arrest by failing to turn himself in to law enforcement despite his pr omise to do so, or if you find that some other motive prompted the defendant’s conduct, or if you are unable to decide what the defendant’s motivation was , then you should not consider this evidence for this purpose. However, if you find that the facts supported the defendant en gaged in such conduct, and if you decide that the defendant was motiv ated by a consciousness or an awareness of guilt, you may, but are not re quired to, consider that evidence in deciding whether the defendant is gui lty of the crimes charged. You alone will determine what weight, if any, to give to this

evidence.

{¶43} Tr. 1562-63.Guernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 18

{¶44} A reviewing court may not reverse a conviction in a criminal ca se due to jury instructions unless it is clear the jury instructions constitut ed prejudicial error. State v.

McKibbon , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C–010145, 2002–Ohio–2041, ¶ 4, citing State v.

Adams , 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 154, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980). In order to de termine whether an erroneous jury instruction was prejudicial, a reviewing cour t must examine the jury

instructions as a whole. State v. Van Gundy, 64 Ohio St.3d 230, 233–234, 594 N.E.2d 604 (1992). Pursuant to Crim. R. 52(A), “[a]ny error, defect, i rregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” {¶45} Appellant argues the instruction was improper because he took n o affirmative steps to avoid apprehension. He argues based on hi s testimony at trial, he was the sole bread winner for his household, and he maintained contact with law enforcement while he finished a job assignment in Cleveland bef ore turning himself in. The State argues Appellant was ultimately arrested in Cleveland , a representation which is not supported by the record. {¶46} The record reflects Appellant told law enforcement he would tur n himself in on February 28, but instead stayed in Cleveland and did not tur n himself in until March 5, 2020. The trial court’s instruction accurately portrayed the e vidence regarding Appellant’s failure to turn himself in on the date he promised law enforcem ent he would do so. The jury was able to hear Appellant’s explanation for remaining in Cleveland for a work obligation, and the trial court accurately instructed the jury if they found Appellant did not resist arrest by failing to turn himself in as promised, or the jury found some other motive than guilt prompted him to fail to turn himself in, or the jury was unable to determine Appellant’s motivation, they should not consider this evidence as consciousness orGuernse y Count y , Case No. 21CA000008 19

awareness of guilt. Based on the totality of the instruction, we find the jury instruction was appropriate and not prejudicial in this case. {¶47} The fifth assignment of error is overruled. {¶48} The judgment of conviction and sentence of the Guernsey County Common

Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J. Wise, Earle, P.J. and Wise, John, J. concur