[Cite as State v. Lester, 2017-Ohio-6972.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

v. : No. 16AP-824 

 (C.P.C. No. 14CR-6377) 

Nyles J. Lester, : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on July 25, 2017 

 

On Brief: Toki Michelle Clark, for appellee. 

On Brief: Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and 

Barbara A. Farnbacher, for appellant. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

TYACK, P.J. 

{¶ 1} Nyles J. Lester is appealing from his conviction for rape and kidnapping. 

He assigns three errors for our consideration: 

[I.] THE VERDICT OF GUILTY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY 

LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND IS AGAINST THE 

MANIFEST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. 

[II.] DUE PROCESS, AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH 

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED 

STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 16, ARTICLE 

ONE OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, IS VIOLATED 

WHEN EVIDENCE OF A PARTIAL Y CHROMOSOME IS 

USED IN A RAPE TRIAL. 

[III.] A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE 

EIGHTH AMENDMENT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL 

PUNISHMENT CLAUSES OCCURS WHERE A RAPE 
No. 16AP-824 2 

CONVICTION BASED ON NON-DNA PARTIAL Y 

CHROMOSOMES RESULTS IN LIFETIME REGISTRATION 

DUTIES. 

{¶ 2} The evidence presented at trial indicated that Nyles Lester had sexual 

intercourse with a heavily intoxicated female college student. The college student was so 

drunk that she did not recall all the details, but she clearly recalled Lester being on her 

and in her. The incident was reported to police immediately after it occurred. 

{¶ 3} The first assignment of error argues that because none of the DNA of Lester 

was found on the body of the female college student and because the student was so 

heavily intoxicated, the student's report of being raped could not support a conviction. 

{¶ 4} Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine 

whether the case should have gone to the jury. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 

386 (1997). In other words, sufficiency tests the adequacy of the evidence and asks 

whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support a 

verdict. Id. "The 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. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 

259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 

(1979). The verdict will not be disturbed unless the appellate court finds that reasonable 

minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier of fact. Jenks at 273. If the 

court determines that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, a judgment of 

acquittal must be entered for the defendant. See Thompkins at 387. 

{¶ 5} Even though supported by sufficient evidence, a conviction may still be 

reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. In so doing, the court 

of appeals, sits as a " 'thirteenth juror' " and, after " 'reviewing the entire record, weighs 

the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and 

determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and 

created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a 

new trial ordered.' " Id. (quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1983)); see 

also Columbus v. Henry, 105 Ohio App.3d 545, 547-48 (1995). Reversing a conviction as 

being against the manifest weight of the evidence should be reserved for only the most " 
No. 16AP-824 3 

'exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.' " 

Thompkins at 387. 

{¶ 6} The college student did not know if Lester had on a condom or even if 

Lester ejaculated. Thus, the fact that no semen was found to be tested is not proof of 

Lester's innocence. 

{¶ 7} A vaginal swab obtained shortly after the student told friends she had been 

raped contained evidence of male DNA. Analysis of the swab could not identify the male 

donor, but Lester was not excluded as the male donor. In short, the DNA evidence did not 

prove that a rape occurred, but it did not prove that a rape did not occur. The jury had to 

rely on the testimony of the female college student and found it sufficiently believable to 

support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape occurred. Several other 

witnesses established that Lester had been a person present that evening and a person 

who interacted with the female college student. 

{¶ 8} In many ways, this prosecution parallels what rape prosecutions were like 

before DNA evidence became such an important part of criminal law prosecutions. A 

young woman who is intoxicated came to and realized a man was on her and in her. She 

almost immediately told her friends and then the police. The man she identified as raping 

her was soon charged and then tried before a jury. The evidence was clearly sufficient. 

{¶ 9} No evidence was presented which indicated Lester was not the person 

interacting with the woman. Further, there was no evidence of consent. The verdict was 

consistent with the weight of the evidence. 

{¶ 10} The first assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 11} The second and third assignments of error attack the fact that testimony 

was placed before the jury which indicated that a swab from the female college student 

was found to contain a partial Y chromosome. We find no fault with this evidence being 

presented. 

{¶ 12} The Y chromosome evidence indicated, at most, that at some point in time, 

the female college student had contact with a male who left a cell in her body. This 

evidence could not be key to the jury's verdict. It protected the prosecution from an 

accusation that it did not thoroughly investigate the case, but did little more. 
No. 16AP-824 4 

{¶ 13} Once Lester was convicted of rape, the statute of Tier III offender was 

required by statute. The reporting requirements accompany his status as a Tier III 

offender. 

{¶ 14} The trial court did not err. 

{¶ 15} The second and third assignments of error are overruled. 

{¶ 16} All three assignments of error having been overruled, the judgment of the 

trial court is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

BRUNNER and HORTON, JJ., concur.