[Cite as State v. Estes, 2019-Ohio-1383.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2018-CA-20 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2016-CR-449 : ANDRE T. ESTES : (Criminal Appeal from : Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : : ........... OPINION Rendered on the 12th day of April, 2019. ........... NATHANIEL R. LUKEN, Atty. Reg. No. 0087864, Greene County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 55 Greene Street, 1st Floor, Xenia, Ohio 45385 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAEL R. PENTECOST, Atty. Reg. No. 0036803, 117 S. Main Street, Suite 400, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ............. -2- HALL, J. {¶ 1} Andre Estes appeals from his convictions for rape of a person under 13 years of age and for attempted rape of a child under 10 years of age. Estes contends that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) and contends that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We conclude that there is no merit to either contention, and we affirm. I. Procedural History and Evidence Presented {¶ 2} In August 2016, Estes was indicted on three counts related to engaging in sexual conduct with his then seven-year-old daughter: one count of rape of a person under 13 years of age, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); one count of sexual battery, in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(5); and one count of attempted rape of a child under 10 years of age, in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and 2907.02(A)(1)(b), accompanied by a sentence-enhancing specification based on the victim’s age. {¶ 3} The state’s evidence included Estes’s cell phone. Estes moved for an independent forensic examination of the phone, which the trial court granted. Examination of the phone revealed web-browser history that included pornographic search terms and websites. Estes filed a motion in limine to exclude this evidence as evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts inadmissible under Evid.R. 404(B). The trial court overruled the motion. {¶ 4} The case proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, the state presented the testimony of several witnesses, including the victim, “Jane”1; Jane’s mother and Estes’s former wife; 1 We use this pseudonym to protect the privacy of the minor child. -3- a pediatric sexual assault nurse examiner at Dayton Children’s Hospital; two people who worked at Michael’s House Child Advocacy Center; forensic scientists at the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation; and the digital forensic examiner who examined Estes’s cell phone. Estes testified in his own defense. {¶ 5} Jane, who was 8 years old at the time of the trial, testified that, in her bedroom in her family’s home, her father had “put his private in my bottom.” (Tr. 34.) According to Jane, he did this while she laid on her stomach on her bed without pants or underwear, and he stood behind her. She said that when Estes did this, it hurt a little. Jane also testified that Estes “put his private in my mouth.” (Tr. 38.) ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals