Court Opinion

ID: 9940477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 16:11:57.509865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:53.127610
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Yost, 2024-Ohio-545.]

STATE OF OHIO                      )                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                   )ss:                 NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT                   )

STATE OF OHIO                                           C.A. No.      30625

        Appellee

        v.                                              APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                        ENTERED IN THE
ROBERT C. YOST                                          COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                        COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
        Appellant                                       CASE No.   CR 20 04 1040

                                  DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: February 14, 2024

        CARR, Presiding Judge.

        {¶1}      Defendant-Appellant Robert Yost appeals the judgment of the Summit County

Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

                                                   I.

        {¶2}      In April 2020, an indictment was filed charging Yost with four counts of rape in

violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and four counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C.

2907.05(A)(4)/(C)(2). The charges involved Yost’s minor step-granddaughter, E.D., who was

born in 2013.

        {¶3}      Ultimately, the matter proceeded to a jury trial in January 2023. Yost was found

guilty of the charges and sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment with parole eligibility

after 30 years.

        {¶4}      Yost has appealed, raising three assignments of error for our review.
                                                 2

                                                 II.

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

       MR. YOST’S FOUR RAPE CONVICTIONS IN VIOLATION OF R.C.
       2907.02(A)(1)(B) WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE
       EVIDENCE.

       {¶5}    Yost argues in his first assignment of error that his convictions for rape were against

the manifest weight of the evidence as the evidence did not support that Yost penetrated E.D.

       In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the
       evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and
       all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine
       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. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). An appellate court should exercise the

power to reverse a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence only in exceptional

cases. Id.

       {¶6}    R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) provides that “[n]o person shall engage in sexual conduct

with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living

separate and apart from the offender, when * * * [t]he other person is less than thirteen years of

age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.”

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

R.C. 2907.01(A).

       {¶7}    This Court has held “that insertion, however slight, of a part of the body or other

object within the vulva or labia is sufficient to prove vaginal penetration for purposes of proving

sexual conduct as defined in R.C. 2907.01(A) and rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02.” State v.
                                                3

Melendez, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 08CA009477, 2009-Ohio-4425, ¶ 14.               Moreover, “victim

testimony related to penetration is sufficient to support a conviction for rape even where the

victim’s own testimony is conflicting on the issue.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.)

Id. at ¶ 15. We are mindful that the jury is in the best position to evaluate credibility. State v.

Schultz, 9th Dist. Summit No. 30407, 2023-Ohio-4228, ¶ 28. Moreover, the jury is “free to believe

all, part, or none of the testimony of each witness.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.)

State v. Briggs, 9th Dist. Medina Nos. 21CA0064-M, 21CA0065-M, 21CA0066-M, 21CA0067-

M, 2023-Ohio-1931, ¶ 27.

       {¶8}    The evidence presented at trial can be summarized by the following narrative. A

few years prior to E.D.’s disclosure of sexual abuse, E.D. lived with paternal grandmother

(“Grandmother”) and paternal step-grandfather, Yost. The grandparents gained temporary custody

of E.D. and her sibling due to addiction issues being faced by E.D.’s mother (“Mother”). Mother

also used drugs while she was pregnant with her youngest child. E.D. began experiencing night

terrors around the time Grandmother and Yost got custody. However, Grandmother asserted that

the night terrors resolved within six months of staying with them.

       {¶9}    Mother’s drug addiction created some tension between Mother and Grandmother,

although Mother maintained at trial that Grandmother was like a mother to her. Grandmother

described their relationship a bit differently; Grandmother indicated that truthfulness was not

Mother’s strong suit and that Mother would sometimes get angry with Grandmother for not

watching the children when Mother wanted Grandmother to do so. Grandmother also indicated

that Mother had made false claims about one of Grandmother’s sons molesting E.D. and that

Mother also told someone that she was going to have E.D. accuse Yost of molesting E.D.
                                                4

According to Grandmother, when Mother was confronted with that accusation, Mother indicated

that she did not mean it.

        {¶10} Prior to losing custody of the children, Mother, E.D.’s father, and the children

frequently moved residences, only staying in each for a short period of time. Mother regained

custody of the children in 2018 but Grandmother and Yost continued to have a relationship with

E.D. and had frequent visitation with her. E.D. had a close relationship with both Grandmother

and Yost. Grandmother testified that E.D. loved Yost and asked to spend time with him and have

him put her to bed. Mother indicated that E.D. began having difficulties in school, particularly

beginning in her kindergarten year.

        {¶11} On March 26, 2020, when E.D. was seven years old, she went over to

Grandmother’s and Yost’s home to stay for the weekend. During the night, E.D. came downstairs

and told Grandmother that Yost touched her privates or “pee-pee.” Grandmother did not remember

anything about E.D. saying that Yost put his fingers inside E.D.; Grandmother expressed that she

would have recalled that if it had been said. Grandmother asked E.D. if she was sure or if she had

a bad dream. E.D. indicated that she was positive, and she did not have a bad dream. Grandmother

went and confronted Yost. Yost denied the allegations saying that “that’s crazy.” E.D. told Yost

that he was lying. Grandmother took E.D. into E.D.’s bedroom and slept in the room with her.

Grandmother had Yost leave the house for a time but began living with him again in September

2020.

        {¶12} On March 27, 2020, Grandmother took E.D. home and told Mother that E.D. had

told her that Yost touched E.D.’s private parts. Mother called the Sheriff and took E.D. to the

hospital emergency room. The emergency room medical records, which were admitted into

evidence, indicate that E.D. informed the social worker that Yost’s nails were sharp and they hurt
                                                 5

her. E.D. also stated that Yost put spit on his finger and put it in her private. E.D. reported that

Yost had been touching her private since she was five years old.

       {¶13} Dr. Ramona Ester Lutes conducted a physical examination of E.D. Dr. Lutes also

collected vaginal and perianal samples from E.D. Dr. Lutes explained that a swab is taken of the

labia majora, or the outer lips. A sample was then taken of the “internal space between the labia

majora and labia minora which is a mucosal surface * * * and is an internal surface.” Dr. Lutes

explained that, in prepubertal children, the vaginal opening itself is not swabbed as it is very

sensitive. Dr. Lutes also took a perianal swab from the area around the anus. E.D.’s underwear

was also collected at that time. Dr. Lutes indicated that the social worker who spoke to E.D. prior

to the exam stated that E.D. had alleged that Yost put his fingers in E.D.’s vagina and that he would

spit on his fingers and then touch her. E.D. reported that Yost frequently touched her private area

and that the last time was at 1:00 a.m. overnight. Dr. Lutes noted no physical injuries, which she

stated was common.

       {¶14} Darla Helmick is a social worker who conducted a forensic interview of E.D. on

April 1, 2020, at the CARE Center. E.D. was referred to the CARE Center after her emergency

room visit. The interview was recorded, played for the jury, and admitted into evidence.

       {¶15} During the CARE Center interview, E.D. informed Ms. Helmick that Yost did

something bad to her. E.D. was in her room, pretending to be sleeping, and Yost came in, put spit

on his finger, and put it in E.D.’s private. E.D. stated that Yost moved his finger around in circles

until it dried and kept scratching her. E.D. indicated that Yost had sharp nails. E.D. indicated that

he rubbed his finger everywhere on her pee-pee, which E.D. stated she uses to go to the bathroom.

Ms. Helmick asked E.D. if Yost put his finger on the outside of her body or the inside of her body.

E.D. responded inside and then added that it was both. E.D. stated that it hurt a little when Yost
                                                 6

did this. E.D. told Ms. Helmick that she waited until Yost finished because she was afraid. When

he did, she went downstairs and told Grandmother. E.D. stated that Yost denied the allegations

and E.D. told him he was lying. E.D. told Ms. Helmick that Yost had been touching her since she

was four or five years old and that he did not do it every day. E.D. indicated that she did not tell

Grandmother sooner because she was afraid, and she did not want Yost to have to leave because

he was fun.

           {¶16} E.D. was then examined by Dr. Paul McPherson, the medical director of the CARE

Center, who also observed the interview with Ms. Helmick. Dr. McPherson conducted a head-to-

toe exam of E.D. Dr. McPherson explained that nothing was inserted inside the vagina during the

exam because, in prepubescent girls, the hymen is sensitive and touching it can cause pain or

discomfort. Whereas, when the outside area, labia majora, is touched, it is not painful.

           {¶17} Dr. McPherson’s exam did not reveal any abnormal findings. He explained that

that is the case in more than 90 percent of exams for sexual abuse and it did not negate E.D.’s

disclosure of abuse.      Dr. McPherson testified that there were two possible reasons E.D.

experienced pain from what she described as being scratched by Yost: 1. It was possible Yost

scratched her with a fingernail; or 2. E.D. experienced Yost touching E.D.’s hymen, which would

have caused pain and discomfort. Dr. McPherson opinioned that the second explanation was “very

likely.”

           {¶18} Mother informed Dr. McPherson that E.D. struggled in school, was becoming

emotional at school, and was not completing work. E.D. began seeing a counselor and had been

diagnosed with anxiety, depression, possible PTSD, attachment disorder, ADHD, and ODD. Dr.

McPherson testified at trial that these behavioral issues are consistent with, but not diagnostic of

child sexual abuse. Ms. Helmick also commented on E.D.’s mental health issues during her
                                                 7

testimony, noting that they could be caused by trauma, including sexual abuse or the problems

associated with Mother’s drug abuse. Near the end of his direct examination, Dr. McPherson

stated that all of his testimony was given within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

       {¶19} Hallie Dreyer with Ohio Buruea of Criminal Investigation testified concerning the

DNA results of the samples taken from E.D. Ms. Dreyer indicated no DNA profile foreign to E.D.

in the vaginal and perianal swabs was detected using conventional DNA testing. Y-STR analysis

was also performed which focuses on male DNA and ignores any female DNA. The vaginal

sample from E.D. contained a Y-STR profile that was consistent with Yost, which meant that

neither Yost nor any of his paternal male relatives could be eliminated as the source of the profile.

The profile is not expected to occur more frequently than once in 9,773 male individuals in the

U.S. population. Additionally, the sample taken from the front panel of the crotch of E.D.’s

underwear revealed a mixture of male DNA using the Y-STR analysis. The major profile found

was consistent with contributions from Yost, meaning neither he nor any of his paternal relatives

could be excluded. Ms. Dreyer testified that the more contact there is with a surface the more

opportunity there is for DNA transfer. She also emphasized that the testing she conducts cannot

reveal how the DNA was deposited or when it was deposited.

       {¶20} At the trial, which took place almost three years after E.D.’s disclosure, E.D. also

testified. At the time of trial, E.D. was ten years old. E.D. testified to staying at Grandmother’s

and Yost’s house on many occasions. E.D. indicated that when she was there that she would do

science experiments, play in the woods, watch TV with Grandmother, and play a game with Yost.

E.D. described her time there as some of the best times of her life.

       {¶21} E.D. also testified that Yost would come into her room and touch her private, which

she called her “pee-pee”, under her underwear with his fingers. E.D. described Yost’s fingers
                                                  8

going around and around her private and that it was sharp and hurt her when he did it. E.D. stated

she would pretend to be asleep. She wanted to get up and tell him to stop but she was afraid. E.D.

reported that it would happen “almost every day[.]” E.D. testified that the last time it happened

was when she was just turning seven or was still six, but that it did not happen on the day that she

told Grandmother about the abuse. She indicated that it happened when she was six and five years

old as well. When E.D. was asked whether Yost’s fingers were on her private, in her private, or

somewhere else, E.D. asserted that his fingers were on her private. The prosecutor then asked

E.D., “Are you telling us it never went inside you?” E.D. responded, “I’m not sure, maybe.”

       {¶22} Grandmother testified for the defense and indicated that Yost sometimes helped

with the household laundry by taking clothes out of the dryer and folding them. Grandmother

indicated that he did that a couple times a week, but she did laundry every day. Grandmother also

reported that she was sexually abused as a young child and told E.D., on a fairly regular basis, that,

if anybody touched her inappropriately, E.D. should tell Grandmother.

       {¶23} In addition, Dr. William O’Donohue testified for the defense via Zoom. Dr.

O’Donohue is a professor of clinical psychology and also codirects a clinic which provides free

psychotherapy to victims of sexual abuse and children subjected to physical abuse.                Dr.

O’Donohue has published numerous articles and book, many of which concern child sexual abuse.

He was qualified by the trial court as an expert in child abuse.

       {¶24} Dr. O’Donohue testified that perpetrators tend to isolate their victims to avoid

discovery and often threaten or bribe the victims to keep them quiet. He testified that children

readily recall abuse and core details associated with abuse because abuse constitutes a traumatizing

event. Consequently, Dr. O’Donohue testified, a child should be able to consistently recount core

details. His research indicates that 97% of children were consistent in the description of the core
                                                   9

details of their abuse. Dr. O’Donohue indicated it would be uncommon for a victim to initially

describe a penetrative sexual act and then later say there was no penetration. He explained it would

also be uncommon for a child to initially say something happened that day and then later say it did

not happen that day. Dr. O’Donohue also reported that children tend to remember the first and

last instances of abuse very clearly. Dr. O’Donohue averred that numerous problems happen

following abuse, including PTSD, anxiety, panic disorders, mood disorders, conduct disorders,

difficulties in school and with relationships. Children also often become afraid of their abuser and

do not want to spend time with that person.

        {¶25} Dr. O’Donohue asserted that most sexual abuse allegations are true; however, there

can be false allegations. Inter alia, false allegations can arise if children are presented with leading

questions or repeatedly questioned about a subject. Dr. O’Donohue noted that this is also why

forensic interviews utilize techniques to reduce the likelihood of false reporting. ODD, or

oppositional defiant disorder, can also lead to false reports as children with it tend do things that

they know are wrong. Dr. O’Donohue also opined that attachment disorders can lead to false

reports of abuse because of the deterioration of important relationships associated with the

disorder.

        {¶26} After independently reviewing the entire record, we cannot say that Yost has

demonstrated that his four convictions for rape are against the weight of the evidence. Despite

Yost’s argument to the contrary, there was substantial evidence presented that Yost digitally

penetrated E.D.’s vagina. During her CARE Center interview, which was played for the jury and

admitted into evidence, E.D. stated that Yost put his fingers both inside and on her private. In the

interview, and during her testimony, E.D. explained that Yost spit on his finger and then rubbed it

around her private and that it hurt some when he did that. She reported that Yost touched her
                                                 10

inappropriately on multiple occasions from the time she was five through when she was seven.

While it is true that E.D. did not testify at trial to penetration, there was other evidence of

penetration the jury could have found convincing including E.D.’s CARE Center interview, her

reports in the emergency room to the social worker, as well as supportive evidence testified to by

Dr. McPherson and Ms. Dreyer. Dr. McPherson opined that the pain she felt was very likely due

to Yost touching E.D.’s hymen, an internal structure. Near the end of his direct examination, Dr.

McPherson stated that all of his testimony was given within a reasonable degree of medical

certainty. Dr. McPherson also noted that E.D.’s behavioral issues were consistent with childhood

sexual abuse, but not diagnostic of it. Ms. Dreyer testified that the Y-STR analysis of the vaginal

swab revealed a profile that was consistent with Yost, which meant that neither Yost nor any of

his paternal male relatives could be eliminated as the source of the profile. While there is no way

to know how the DNA was deposited there, the jury would not have been unreasonable to have

found that it got there from inappropriate touching by Yost. The jury could have been unpersuaded

that Yost’s handling of the laundry explained the depositing of DNA in the vaginal sample from

E.D.    While there was expert testimony that certainly called into question some of the

inconsistencies in E.D.’s statements, the jury was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of

the witnesses and make credibility determinations. See State v. Schultz, 9th Dist. Summit No.

30407, 2023-Ohio-4228, ¶ 28. We will not overturn a jury verdict simply because the jury believed

certain witness testimony over that of others. Id. Moreover, to the extent that E.D.’s testimony

was inconsistent with some of her prior statements, it was the jury’s role to take note of those

points and resolve them or discount them. State v. Ocasio, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010773,

2016-Ohio-4686, ¶ 29. Yost has not demonstrated the jury lost its way in finding him guilty of

rape.
                                                  11

        {¶27} Yost’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                                  ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

        THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO
        GRANT MR. YOST’S MOTION FOR MISTRIAL.

        {¶28} Yost argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court abused its

discretion in failing to grant Yost a mistrial.

        {¶29} This Court generally will not reverse a trial court’s decision pertaining to a motion

for mistrial absent a demonstration that the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Stevens, 9th

Dist. Summit No. 30336, 2023-Ohio-2153, ¶ 16.

        {¶30} “Mistrials need be declared only when the ends of justice so require and a fair trial

is no longer possible.” State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 127 (1991). “To determine whether

the alleged misconduct resulted in prejudice, a court must consider (1) the nature of the error, (2)

whether an objection was made, (3) whether the trial court provided corrective instructions, and

(4) the strength of the evidence against the defendant.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Stevens at

¶ 18, quoting State v. Edwards, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28164, 2017-Ohio-7231, ¶ 13. “A jury is

presumed to follow the instructions, including curative instructions, given it by a trial judge.”

(Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Stevens at ¶ 28.

        {¶31} Here, during the cross-examination of Grandmother, Grandmother testified that

Yost denied the allegations made by E.D. The State then asked Grandmother, “And you didn’t

trust him, did you?” At that point, defense counsel objected, and a side bar was held. Defense

counsel argued that it was improper for a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness

and the question improperly implied that Grandmother did not trust Yost, thereby also implying

that Yost committed the offense. Defense counsel then moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied

the motion. The trial court then informed the jury that the State was withdrawing the question and
                                                  12

ordered the jury to “disregard the question as if [it] did not hear it[.]” The jury was also later

instructed that any testimony that it was instructed to disregard must be treated as though the jury

did not hear it and the jury could not “consider as evidence any suggestion included in a question

that was not answered.”

         {¶32} Yost has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the

motion for a mistrial. Even assuming the question was improper, the jury did not hear an answer

to the question. Moreover, the jury came to learn that Grandmother made Yost leave the house

for a time and Grandmother took the accusations seriously enough to inform Mother so that E.D.

could get the appropriate care and the allegations could be investigated. Thus, the jury may have

reasonably inferred that Grandmother, at least initially, did not completely trust what Yost said.

Additionally, the trial court provided the jury with an instruction to disregard the question, which

the jury is assumed to have followed. See id. Further, we are mindful that there was substantial

evidence that Yost committed the crimes at issue and the question did not directly address that

issue.

         {¶33} Yost’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                                  ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

         THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT PERMITTED THE
         STATE TO REPEATEDLY QUESTION E.D. ON PENETRATION.

         {¶34} Yost argues in his third assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion

in allowing the State to repeatedly ask E.D. about penetration.

         {¶35} Evid.R. 611(A) provides that “[t]he court shall exercise reasonable control over the

mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the

interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless

consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.”
                                                13

“Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be

necessary to develop the witness’ testimony.” Evid.R. 611(C). Thus, a trial court possesses broad

discretion in these areas. See State v. Williams, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29547, 2021-Ohio-2491, ¶

21; State v. Liddle, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23287, 2007-Ohio-1820, ¶ 30.

       Ohio case law has explained that the trial court is to be given latitude in such
       matters, especially in cases involving children who are the alleged victims of sexual
       offenses. This Court has recognized that the necessity to use leading questions to
       develop testimony may be more critical where the witness is a child who may be
       uncomfortable, fearful or perplexed by the legal system. Leading questions are
       often permitted in order to pinpoint specific details and times. Such testimony may
       not be a ground for reversal on review unless prejudice results.

(Internal citations omitted.) Liddle at ¶ 30.

       {¶36} Here, when questioning E.D. on direct examination, the State first asked if, “[w]hen

[Yost] would come in your room and touch you with his finger, was his finger on your pee-pee, in

your pee-pee * * * or somewhere else?” Defense counsel objected on the basis of leading, and the

trial court overruled the objection. E.D. answered, “On.” The State then asked, “Did it ever go

inside?” Defense counsel again objected, this time on the basis that it was asked and answered.

The trial court sustained the objection. The State next asked, “Are you telling us it never went

inside you?” Defense counsel objected, asserting that it had been asked and answered. The trial

court overruled the objection. E.D. then responded, “I’m not sure, maybe.”

       {¶37} Despite Yost’s argument to the contrary, we cannot say that Yost has demonstrated

that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to ask the question it did. This

question could be viewed as the State attempting to clarify E.D.’s answer and ensure that it had a

correct understanding of E.D.’s allegations. See State v. Rector, 7th Dist. Carroll No. 01 AP 758,

2002-Ohio-7442, ¶ 31-32.
                                                14

       {¶38} Furthermore, we cannot say that Yost has shown that E.D.’s answer prejudiced him.

E.D.’s answer was unclear. The answer initially expressed uncertainty and was followed with

“maybe[,]” which in light of the way the question was asked, could be viewed as E.D. confirming

that Yost’s fingers did not go inside her. Either way, Yost has not demonstrated that this answer

was outcome determinative to the case; as discussed above, there was additional substantial

evidence presented to support that Yost committed the crimes at issue.

       {¶39} Yost’s third assignment of error is overruled.

                                                III.

       {¶40} Yost’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                               Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
                                      15

      Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                           DONNA J. CARR
                                           FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

PETER T. CAHOON and BRANDON W. MCHUGH, Attorneys at Law, for Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.