Court Opinion

ID: 9813602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:11:46.230062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:59.094350
License: Public Domain

(Decided — April 18, 1958.)
On Merits : Court of Appeals for Preble County.
Wiseman, J.
This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Preble County entered in a criminal proceeding wherein the defendant was convicted of rape.
The indictment charged that the defendant “unlawfully and forcibly raped * * * Gloria Wolfenberger, she * * * then and there being his daughter, contrary to Section 2905.02 of the Revised Code of Ohio.”
The defendant having waived in writing a jury trial, the cause was tried to the court which found the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment.
The sole assignment of error is that the conviction is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. Appellant contends that the evidence fails to show that the offense was committed “forcibly and against her will” as provided by statute.
*324The evidence shows that at the residence the defendant had threatened to whip his daughter with his belt which he held in his hand if she did not accompany him. He drove his automobile approximately one and one-half miles and parked the automobile in a field where the act occurred, some time after ten o’clock at night. The prosecuting witness, who was 12 years of age at the time the offense was committed, testified that the defendant used force in pushing her down and in holding her down on the rear seat of the defendant’s automobile, and that the defendant threatened to hit her if she did not yield. The defendant, upon being questioned on cross-examination as to whether he used any force, testified:
“Q. You pushed her over, you forced her, is that right? A. "Well, you might call it that way.”
The evidence justifies the conclusion that the prosecuting witness was within the power and control of the defendant, and her will and resistance were overcome by fear or duress. See State v. Martin, 77 Ohio App., 553, 68 N. E. (2d), 807. The failure of the victim to make an outcry is sufficiently explained by the fact that she was only 12 years of age, the place where the offense was committed, and also by the relationship of the parties.
The evidence supports the judgment and sentence. The assignment of error is not well made.

Judgment affirmed.

Hornbeck, P. J., and Crawford, J., concur.