Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Cowgill

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 957
• Docket Number: F-25-001

• Judges: Mayle

• Opinion

• Authorities (10)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.7K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Per Mayle, J., there is sufficient evidence to convict defendant-appellant, Michael Cowgill of rape. Additionally, the conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the Fulton County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Cowgill, 2026-Ohio-957.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
FULTON COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. F-25-001

Appellee Trial Court No. 24 CR 0162

v.

Michael Cowgill DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: March 20, 2026

---

T. Luke Jones, Fulton County Prosecuting Attorney,
and Paul H. Kennedy, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,
for appellee.

Karin L. Coble, for appellant.

---

MAYLE, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Michael Cowgill, appeals the April 17, 2025 judgment of the

Fulton County Court of Common Pleas, convicting him of one count of rape, in violation

of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), a felony in the first degree, and sentencing him to 10 to 15 years’

incarceration, five-years post-release control, and lifetime registration as a Tier III Sex

Offender. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Factual Background

{¶ 2} On November 19, 2024, Cowgill was indicted for four counts of rape arising

out of allegations of sexual abuse made by his daughter, E.M. Each count represented a

different date range of alleged abuse—count one took place from January 1, 2024

through January 2, 2024; counts two and three took place from January 3, 2024 through

July 2, 2024; and count four took place from July 3, 2024 through July 4, 2024.

{¶ 3} The case was tried before a jury beginning March 6, 2025. The State

presented the testimony of six witnesses—the victim, E.M.; her mother, E.W.; the deputy

who performed the search of Cowgill’s house; the sexual assault nurse examiner

(“SANE”) who treated E.M.; an Ohio Bureau of Investigation (“BCI”) technician; and

the detective who interviewed Cowgill. Cowgill presented one witness—his son, G.C.,

and testified on his own behalf. After a three-day jury trial, Cowgill was found not guilty

of counts one through three and guilty of count four. The following facts were developed

at trial.

A. Background

{¶ 4} The victim in this case is Cowgill’s daughter, E.M. Prior to E.M.’s

allegations that her father had raped her, Cowgill had been the primary custodian of E.M

and her half-brother, G.C.

{¶ 5} At the time of the alleged incident, E.M. was 17 years old, but it was

revealed at trial that she has serious mental health diagnoses. According to Cowgill, she

performs at a second-grade level, and has a history of lying and violence. A

2.
psychological evaluation of E.M., which was presented as Defendant’s Exhibit F,

explains that E.M. had been diagnosed by the Zepf Center with “disruptive mood

dysregulation disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and reactive

attachment disorder (RAD),” and by Akron’s Children’s Hospital with “nonpsychotic

mental disorder, suicidal ‘ideological’, opposition defiance disorder and autism.” E.M.

had also been engaging in outpatient therapy for several years.

{¶ 6} In the months leading up to the incident at issue in this case, E.M. had been

struggling with suicidal ideations and attempts. Because of this, Cowgill had

implemented safety measures throughout his home including keeping E.M. from the

second story and locking his bedroom. During this time, E.M. also had stays in different

hospitals and in Juvenile Detention Center (“JDC”).

{¶ 7} E.M.’s behavioral changes and treatment during the times of alleged abuse

was a large topic at trial, however, because Cowgill was acquitted of counts one through

three, our review will primarily focus on the evidence specifically relating to count four

and the events of July 3 through July 5, 2024.

B. E.M.’s Testimony

{¶ 8} The State’s first witness was E.M. According to E.M., on July 3, 2024,

Cowgill took her half-brother, G.C., to his mother’s house for visitation. Once he was

dropped off, she and Cowgill went to Walmart where Cowgill purchased her food and an

outfit—a pair of jeans and a crop top. E.M. testified that Cowgill told her that she had to

“do something for him,” in exchange for the clothes. She stated that she did not know

3.
what “doing something for him” meant “because I always tried to shut it out about what it

means.” She then stated that they left Walmart and when they got home, she ate and then

fell asleep in the living room. When asked what happened next, E.M. said that Cowgill

woke her up and told her what she had to do. E.M. told the court that “he had intercourse

with me and it was not fun” and then reiterated that “[h]e made me do intercourse.”

{¶ 9} When asked what she meant by “intercourse,” E.M. said that Cowgill was

naked and that to her, “to have intercourse” meant “sexual abuse.” When asked, “what

parts of your body and his body were involved,” E.M. answered “I’m too uncomfortable.

I’m too uncomfortable” and was guided to discuss where the abuse happened. When

asked where it occurred, she said the living room, on the couch. E.M. described Cowgill

pushing her over the edge/arm of the couch and “started doing the intercourse stuff” and

removed her clothing E.M. explained that:

A. He started doing the intercourse stuff and I lost so much that I, I just
closed my eyes and tried not to think of it, what was going on.
Q. Ok. How did it feel physically to you when that was happening?
A. Painful.
Q. What did you - painful? Ok. Painful where on your body?
A. My down below part.
Q . Your down below part?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Ok. Did your dad say anything to you while this was happening?
A. No.
Q. Ok. Did you hear or make any noises or do anything else while it was
happening?

4.
A. No.
Q. Any idea how long it, it lasted?
A. No.

---

Q. And while this was happening did you ever see his down below part?
A. No.
Q. No, ok. Why, why was that?
A. It just, I just [unintelligible] but I felt it.
{¶ 10} E.M. explained that after it was over, she went and locked herself into her

room and hid away for the rest of the night.

{¶ 11} E.M. also described the events of July 4, 2024—the day after the incident.

She testified that she had been at her mom’s house when she “got really stressed out and

then started getting suicidal” and tried to run into traffic and tried to cut herself. When

asked why she was stressed that day, E.M. answered “[b]ecause Dad assaulted me and it

just keeps running in my mind, always having flashbacks.” E.M. then explained how she

told her mother that “Dad is doing things he’s not supposed to with me,” and that her

mother responded by calling the police and taking her to the hospital.

{¶ 12} In addition to describing the events of July 3 and 4, 2024, E.M. also

testified more generally about ongoing sexual abuse. She mentioned that she was afraid

of getting pregnant and explained that for two months, she tracked what her dad did to

her on her tablet, so she did not forget how late her period was. When asked why she was

afraid of getting pregnant, E.M. told the prosecution, “[b]ecause of what Dad was doing

to me.”

5.
{¶ 13} When asked about the “protection stuff” (condoms), E.M. explained that

they were something men put on their bodies. She stated that Cowgill’s protection things

were in a drawer and that she knew they were in the drawer because she always saw him

put stuff in there. However, she then testified that she could not recall if she had ever

seen Cowgill put “a protection thing” in the drawer and while she had not seen Cowgill

use one, she thought he was using them with her “because I knew he wouldn’t want to get

caught and he didn’t want me to get pregnant.” When asked what Cowgill would be

doing before he put the protection things in the drawer and whether he would be doing

something by himself or with E.M. or her brother, E.M. answered “[w]ith me.”

{¶ 14} E.M. told the court that she had been trying to show her brother the

condoms in Cowgill’s room to try and get him to call and tell his mother. E.M. explained

that she believed that G.C.’s mother could help her get out of Cowgill’s house, however,

when she tried to tell her brother about the abuse, he did not want to see it and did not

believe her. When asked why she wanted to get out, E.M. told the court that she did not

feel safe and was afraid that Cowgill was going to hurt her.

{¶ 15} E.M. additionally testified that she never went looking in the house for the

condoms, never touched them, and never looked through the drawers to see what was in

them. However, on cross-examination, E.M. did note that the door to her father’s room

was not always locked like it was supposed to be.

6.
{¶ 16} When asked about telling anybody about what her dad did to her, E.M.

testified that Cowgill told her never to tell and that no one was going to believe her. She

explained that she believed Cowgill when he said that, because she lies a lot.

{¶ 17} E.M. also identified pictures that she had drawn with her “Child Service

worker” where she had drawn circles around “Dad’s down below area” and her own

“down below area” to show where the abuse happened. When asked what the word for

those areas were, E.M. did not know what either was called.

{¶ 18} Finally, E.M. discussed her relationship with her dad. On cross-

examination, she acknowledged that she told people that Cowgill never did anything to

her, but explained that it was because “I didn’t want him to be in trouble. Because I know

my brother misses him.” When asked about whether she wanted to see her dad, she

stated that she did at first to make sure he was okay, but now she does not. She

additionally testified that she told her case workers that she wanted to go home to

Cowgill, but was told she was not allowed to.

C. E.W.’s testimony

{¶ 19} Next, E.M.’s mother, E.W., testified. She explained that she lost custody of

all her children due to “cleanliness” issues in her home and that Cowgill gained custody

of E.M. during that period. E.W. explained that she had no contact with E.M. for several

years prior to reconnecting when E.M. was around 15 or 16. However, E.W. then

explained that she really did not have experience with E.M. until January or February of

2024 when they increased visitations and E.M. started coming over for overnights.

7.
{¶ 20} Relevant to the appeal, E.W. testified that after reconnecting, she started to

notice E.M.’s behavior deteriorate. “[E.M.] would constantly talk about suicide and that

nobody could put rules on her, um, she was just bouncing everywhere, it was just energy

that was negative and it was hard.” She further explained that at this point, E.M. was

getting in trouble frequently and was in and out of court and hospitals.

{¶ 21} Regarding the night of July 4, 2024, E.W. testified that E.M. refused to take

her medications and locked herself in the bathroom. E.M. then ran out of the apartment

and screamed at E.W. that Cowgill was “raping” her and that nobody would believe her.

E.W. said that she told E.M. that she believed her and then called police and took E.M. to

a hospital where she stayed with E.M. while the rape kit was performed.

{¶ 22} When asked how E.M. was acting the morning following the exam, E.W.

answered that she was “[s]tressed. Scared. She told me what I had heard her say to me

over and over again, I shouldn’t have done it, I just want to go home to him, he’s going to

be so angry, sad, she said I feel so bad for doing this.” When asked if E.M. had done or

said anything to make E.W. believe that she had made the story up, or retracted her story,

E.W. stated that she had not.

D. Deputy Hensley’s testimony

{¶ 23} Deputy Chase Hensley, the officer who searched Cowgill’s home, testified

that he received a call to investigate allegations of a sex offense involving Cowgill. He

explained that he had been on patrol and after the call, went to Cowgill’s house in the

early hours of July 5, 2024. Deputy Hensley testified that when he arrived at the house,

8.
he found Cowgill sitting on the front porch waiting for him, aware that a report had been

made.

{¶ 24} According to Deputy Hensley, he told Cowgill that they were in the process

of getting a search warrant and would be treating the investigation as if the allegations

were true. Cowgill told Deputy Hensley that he understood and gave him consent to

search the home. Deputy Hensley testified that he knew where to look when he went into

the residence because E.M. told her victim advocate that there were condoms saved in the

bedside drawer, so when he went into the residence, he began to search the bedroom.

During his search, Deputy Hensley found a homemade sex toy, three condoms, and a

condom wrapper. He photographed the entire area then bagged the condoms and

wrappers for evidence.

{¶ 25} After finishing his search, Deputy Hensley came back out to discuss what

he found with Cowgill. According to Deputy Hensley, he first asked Cowgill if he would

have found anything that would have piqued his interest and that Cowgill told him there

were possibly knives in his room that he would have kept from E.W. Deputy Hensley

then explained to Cowgill that he found condoms under the drawer. In response, Cowgill

told the deputy that he used the condoms with the homemade sex toy as a means to keep

the toy clean.

{¶ 26} Deputy Hensley next told the court that he discussed getting a DNA sample

with Cowgill and that Cowgill consented to giving the sample. He testified that his

partner, Sgt. Rodriguez, was the one who took the sample while he witnessed.

9.
{¶ 27} All of Deputy Hensley’s testimony was corroborated by photos and body

worn camera footage shown to the jury and admitted into evidence.

E. SANE testimony

{¶ 28} Sharla Young, a registered nurse and SANE (sexual assault nurse

examiner), testified next and explained that that she was the one who examined E.M.

when her mother took her to the hospital after E.M. made the allegations against Cowgill.

Young described meeting with E.M., E.W., E.W.’s significant other., and the victim

advocate. She characterized E.M. as “childlike” in her mannerisms—the way she held

her blanket and pillow, her speech, and the way that she wrote her name.

{¶ 29} Young testified that she performed a physical examination of E.M.,

collected a DNA sample from E.M.’s mouth, and performed a sexual assault evidence

collection kit. In the kit, she collected vaginal swabs, anal/perianal swabs, pubic hair

combing, fingernail swabbing, and collected E.M.’s underwear. Young did not find any

injuries during her exam, but did note that E.M. complained of some pain on her labia.

When asked about E.M.’s demeanor during the exam, Young noted that she was very

talkative and chatty but became very quiet, spoke rapidly, and had few words to say when

asked about the sexual assault.

{¶ 30} On cross-examination, Young testified that E.M. referred to her physical

body parts as “down there” and when she described what happened to her, she told Young

that Cowgill “made me bend over the couch and he put his thing in me and I didn’t like

it.”

10.
F. BCI testimony

{¶ 31} The evidence collected by the SANE was sent to the Ohio Bureau of

Investigation (“BCI”), where Sabrina Selbe, a forensic scientist with BCI, examined and

tested it. She testified next about her DNA report based on the evidence received by the

lab. Selbe explained that with their teamwork approach, while she was not the one who

initially examined the evidence when it came in, she was the one who tested it. Selbe

testified that there was no contamination in this case.

{¶ 32} Selbe found two DNA contributions from a non-sperm fraction sample

outside the tested condom. She explained that the mixture of the contributors was

consistent with E.M. and Cowgill to a certainty of 1 in 1 trillion based on the two known

standards taken from the two of them. Selbe further testified that a sperm fraction with a

single source of DNA was found consistent with Cowgill, and that the inside of the

condom also contained a DNA profile—single source DNA consistent with Cowgill.

{¶ 33} Selbe could not say how the DNA would have come to be on a piece of

evidence, but she stated that she would not expect “touch” DNA to be present on the

condom, because biological fluids will often drown out touch DNA. She explained that

touching an object does not leave much DNA compared to a strong fluid sample. When

asked if she would expect to find E.M.’s profile on the condom had she simply touched

the outside of it, Selbe answered “I would not typically expect to see that, no.”

{¶ 34} On cross, Selbe conceded that her co-worker made a comment that dirt and

debris were present on the condom. While she could not say for sure if the dirt and debris

11.
affected the testing, Selbe stated that “there were still really hardy DNA profiles

obtained.”

G. Detective Gladieux’s testimony

{¶ 35} The State’s final witness, Detective Aaron Gladieux, testified that he

interviewed Cowgill during the course of the investigation.

{¶ 36} His first interview with Cowgill took place on July 30, 2024. Detective

Gladieux described Cowgill during the interview as very concerned for his daughter,

nervous, fidgety, and sweating. He noted that Cowgill denied the allegations and when

asked about the condoms, he said that there was no reason her DNA should be on the

condoms—“no 100% no chance” and “no way in hell her DNA should be on [the

condoms].” In video evidence of the interview presented to the jury, Detective Gladieux

can be heard saying that E.M. mentioned Cowgill’s fingers going inside her. Detective

Gladieux did not reference this statement in his testimony.

{¶ 37} After the DNA results were issued by BCI, Detective Gladieux met with

Cowgill a second time on September 17, 2024. When first asked about the DNA,

Cowgill again denied any chance of E.M.’s DNA being on the condoms. Detective

Gladieux noted, however, that once he told Cowgill that her DNA was on the condom,

Cowgill changed his story a bit and made a comment about E.M. planting the DNA.

{¶ 38} Detective Gladieux testified that he had no contact with Cowgill after the

September 17, 2024 interview.

12.
{¶ 39} On cross-examination, Detective Gladieux noted that both interviews with

Cowgill were voluntary, that Cowgill continuously denied the accusations, and that he

took a stress test that came back as inconclusive.

{¶ 40} The State rested.

H. G.C. testimony

{¶ 41} Cowgill’s sole witness, besides himself, was his son, G.C., E.M.’s half-

brother. G.C. lived with him during the periods of time relevant to this case.

{¶ 42} G.C. testified that E.M. lies a lot, does stuff that she is not supposed to, and

gets in trouble a lot. G.C. also noted that E.M. threatened suicide more than once when

she was upset. Regarding her lies, G.C. explained: “Like if she hurt someone, she tried to

blame it on me or just say I didn’t actually do it. It doesn’t really matter in what - if she

would get in trouble, she would lie and try to blame it on someone else or something like

that.” When asked if he had ever seen his father put his hands on anyone in a way that he

should not, C.G. answered, “no.”

{¶ 43} When asked about Cowgill’s bedroom on cross-examination, G.C. noted

that Cowgill’s door was usually locked—particularly when he was not there so E.M.

could not get in. G.C. then noted that E.M. would go into Cowgill’s room to ask him a

question or try to take her tablet.

I. Cowgill’s testimony

{¶ 44} During his testimony, Cowgill first went through E.M.’s behavioral issues,

his journey getting custody of her, the history of her treatments, and the changes he made

13.
to his home to protect her after her suicide attempt. Cowgill also described incidents of

inappropriate communication between E.M. and men on her tablet and how one of her

tablets was taken by police for an investigation. When asked about E.M.’s tendency to

lie, Cowgill noted that she feared going back to jail or to the hospital and would lie to

avoid it.

{¶ 45} Regarding the allegations, Cowgill confirmed E.W.’s statement that on the

day E.M. made her accusations, E.M. was with her mother. He stated that E.W. called

him saying that E.M. had refused to take her medications and was “acting up.” Cowgill

noted that they both agreed to take her to the hospital.

{¶ 46} Shortly after E.M. made her accusation, Cowgill showed up to the hospital.

He testified that he spoke to E.W.’s partner outside the emergency room and was told to

go home. He explained that he went home and waited on his front porch for the police to

show up.

{¶ 47} Cowgill testified that once the police showed up, he admitted to knowing

why they were at his house and described cooperating with them and asking them to give

him a lie detector test. When asked why he was so compliant, Cowgill stated, “[b]ecause

am not guilty. Anybody that knows me, knows that I would never raise my hand to a

woman let alone—that’s the worst crime that you could ever do to somebody.”

{¶ 48} Turning to the evidence found in his home, Cowgill explained that because

he had not been dating to focus on his daughter, he used a homemade sex toy for

14.
masturbating and used condoms to keep it clean. Cowgill further explained that he used

the dresser in his bedroom as a garbage can or “catch all.”

{¶ 49} When asked if E.M.’s tablets were kept in that same dresser, Cowgill

explained that when he took E.M.’s tablets away as a punishment for doing things she

was not supposed to do, he stored the tablets in the drawer with the sex toy and condoms

“thinking even if she did find it that she would find it and she would be like ‘Oh God,

No—I’m not touching that’ and not try to take it back.”

{¶ 50} Regarding his locked door, Cowgill testified that he did not keep it locked

at all times like he was supposed to, but that he would try to.

{¶ 51} When asked if he raped his daughter, Cowgill stated, “Never. I would never

do anything like that to anyone, let alone my own child.”

{¶ 52} On cross-examination, Cowgill agreed with the State that the first suicide

attempt was six to seven months prior to the July 4, 2024 incident.

{¶ 53} Throughout his testimony, Cowgill maintained his position that E.M.’s

DNA should not have been on the collected condoms. When asked by the State if his

belief was that E.M. removed the condoms from the lower drawer with the sex toy and

placed them underneath the top drawer, he confirmed that it was. He explained that “she

knew the sex toy was there because that’s where I had hidden the tablet in the past and

the only motivation I can think of for her moving the condoms from that lower drawer to

the upper drawer was to get me out of the way.” When asked when he think she moved

the condoms, Cowgill explained that:

15.
Somewhere after the time that she was made the deal with the
juvenile prosecutor’s on it because in over nine months throughout all of
this, repeatedly she has gone before every professional psychiatrist,
therapist, doctor and everyone has asked her—have you ever been sexually
assaulted—no. Has your father every sexually assaulted you—no my father
would never in one way shape or form and all of sudden it’s hey—all these
charges will drop if it had happened to where all of a sudden I am being
accused of sexually assaulting her. All of those charges did in fact get
dropped against her to where nothing but time credited that she had on it.
They promised to get her into a facility….
J. Verdict and Sentencing

{¶ 54} After hearing the evidence, the jury acquitted Cowgill of counts one

through three and convicted him of count four for the events taking place between July 3

and July 4, 2024.

{¶ 55} On April 17, 2025, the court proceeded to sentencing. The court sentenced

Cowgill to 10 to 15 years’ incarceration, five-year post-release control, and lifetime

registration as a Tier III Sex Offender.

{¶ 56} Cowgill appealed and assigned the following errors for our review:

A. Assignment of Error One: The verdict for rape was unsupported by
sufficient evidence and was therefore a violation of Due Process as
guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and
Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution.
B. Assignment Error Two: The conviction is against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
II. Law and Analysis

{¶ 57} In his assignments of error, Cowgill challenges both the sufficiency and

manifest weight of the evidence. We will address the arguments in order.

16.
A. Sufficiency

{¶ 58} In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the

evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether “any rational

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a

reasonable doubt.” (Internal citations omitted.) State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 113

(1997); State v. Coker, 2025-Ohio-2051, ¶ 17. In making that determination, the

appellate court will not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. State

v. Were, 2008–Ohio–2762, ¶ 132. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support a

conviction is a question of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997).

{¶ 59} A rape conviction under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) requires the State to prove that

the defendant engaged in sexual conduct with another by compelling the other person to

submit by force or threat of force. Here, Cowgill argues that his rape conviction is

unsupported by sufficient evidence because there is no evidence of sexual conduct, force,

or threat of force.

1. Sexual Conduct

{¶ 60} “‘[S]exual 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.

17.
2907.01(A). Cowgill claims this element is lacking because the state did not present

sufficient evidence of penetration.

{¶ 61} Cowgill argues that this case is similar to State v. Ferguson, 5 Ohio St. 3d

160, 167-168 (1983), where the defendant’s conviction was vacated for insufficient

evidence of “sexual conduct” where the victim only testified that she and the defendant

“had intercourse.” In Ferguson, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “intercourse”

without any testimony as to any degree of vaginal or anal penetration was insufficient

evidence. Id. at 168. Cowgill argues that E.M.’s testimony that he “had intercourse” with

her and that he “made [her] do intercourse,” followed by her explanations that intercourse

means he was naked and that having intercourse means sexual abuse, is insufficient to

support a conviction. He argues that at no time did E.M. state that he put any part of his

body inside her nor did she testify that when she said “intercourse,” she included

penetration.

{¶ 62} In response, the State contends that there was sufficient evidence to sustain

a verdict when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution. First, there was

testimony that Cowgill had been “raping” E.M. and that he always wore a condom so that

she did not get pregnant. Additionally, there was the mix of DNA on the condom found

in Cowgill’s dresser. Finally, when describing the “intercourse,” E.M. said it was painful

to her “down below area.”

18.
{¶ 63} Victim testimony as to penetration is sufficient to establish the element. See

State v. Wright, 2013-Ohio-5910, ¶ 27 (6th Dist.). See also State v. Rowland, 2020-Ohio-

2984, ¶ 20 (12th Dist.) (victim testified that defendant touched her clitoris and that the

clitoris is within the vaginal opening); State v. Parks, 2019-Ohio-867, ¶ 13-14 (8th Dist.)

(victim testimony is sufficient and corroborating medical evidence not required).

Moreover, the Supreme Court of Ohio recently pronounced that “[i]n a rape case,

inferences can be drawn against the accused and in favor of the State when the record

supports it.” Coker, 2025-Ohio-2051, at ¶ 17.

{¶ 64} Regarding penetration, the State presented (1) the DNA evidence with both

Cowgill and E.M.’s DNA found outside a condom; (2) E.M.’s testimony that Cowgill had

intercourse with her and that it was painful to her “down below area;” (3) E.M.’s fear of

getting pregnant because of “what Dad was doing to me” and tracking what he did in her

tablet; (4) E.M.’s reference to Cowgill using protection because she knew he did not want

her to get pregnant; (5) E.W.’s testimony that E.M. told her Cowgill was “raping” her; (6)

the testimony of the SANE nurse that E.M. told her that that Cowgill “made me bend

over the couch and he put his thing in me and I didn’t like it;” (7) the testimony of the

BCI technician who did not believe E.M.’s profile would have shown up on the condom

had it only been her “touch” DNA; and (8) the video of Detective Gladieux telling

Cowgill that E.M. reported his fingers going inside her.

19.
{¶ 65} This record supports an inference of penetration, which is sufficient

evidence of sexual conduct. While Cowgill argues that E.M.’s testimony regarding the

use of the word “intercourse” is insufficient to prove penetration under Ferguson, his

reliance upon that case is misplaced. The Supreme Court of Ohio recently limited

Ferguson to its facts. Coker at ¶ 18. And even setting that limitation aside, this case is

easily distinguishable from Ferguson. There, the Supreme Court made clear that the

victim’s testimony was “the only evidence which arguably tends to establish vaginal or

anal intercourse.” Ferguson, 5 Ohio St.3d at 167. Here, there was DNA evidence,

testimony from E.M., and other witness testimony which more explicitly references

penetration—all of which, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution,

supports an inference of sexual misconduct. Coker at ¶ 17.

1. Force or Threat of Force

{¶ 66} “Force” is defined as “any violence, compulsion, or constraint physically

exerted by any means upon or against a person or thing.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(1).

{¶ 67} Cowgill argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he

compelled E.M. to submit to sexual conduct by force or threat of force. He claims that

there must be some evidence of fear, duress, or intimidation. Cowgill argues that E.M.’s

testimony was insufficient to show that her will was overcome by fear or duress. He

contends that the only physical force E.M. testified to was that “he pushed me over the

edge of the couch” and that he took off her clothing.

20.
{¶ 68} In response, the State looks to E.M’s testimony that Cowgill pushed her

over the arm of the couch and removed her clothes, and that he told her to never tell

anyone about what was happening and that no one would believe her. Additionally, the

State notes that E.M. testified that she did not feel safe and feared that he would hurt her.

The State maintains that the evidence presented at trial showed that E.M.’s will was

overcome by fear, duress or intimidation in part, because of the parent-child relationship

between her and Cowgill, with whom she lived at the time.

{¶ 69} “A defendant purposely compels another to submit to sexual conduct by

force or threat of force if the defendant uses physical force against that person, or creates

the belief that physical force will be used if the victim does not submit.” State v. Schaim,

65 Ohio St.3d 51 (1992), paragraph one of the syllabus. The force required to commit

rape is that which is necessary to overcome the will of the victim. State v. Muller, 2012–

Ohio–3530, ¶ 57 (3d Dist.). It is a relative term that depends on the age, size, and

strength of the parties and their relation to each other. State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56

(1988), paragraph one of the syllabus, citing State v. Labus, 102 Ohio St. 26, 38–39

(1921).

{¶ 70} Moreover, a victim’s non-consent to sexual conduct is not required to prove

forcible rape; rather, evidence of consent—or lack thereof—goes to the State’s ability to

prove whether the defendant purposefully forced or compelled the victim. State v.

Hartman, 2016–Ohio–2883, ¶ 27 (2d Dist.).

21.
{¶ 71} In cases specifically involving sexual contact or conduct between a minor

child and a parent, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that force “need not be overt and

physically brutal, but can be subtle and psychological” and that the element can be

established “[a]s long as it can be shown that the rape victim’s will was overcome by fear

or duress[.]” Eskridge at 58, 59. The court recognized “coercion inherent in parental

authority when a father sexually abuses his child,” and noted that “‘[s]exual activity

between a parent and a minor child is not comparable to sexual activity between two

adults with a history of consensual intercourse. The youth and vulnerability of children,

coupled with the power inherent in a parent’s position of authority, creates a unique

situation of dominance and control in which explicit threats and displays of force are not

necessary to effect the abuser’s purpose.’” Id. at 59, quoting State v. Etheridge, 319 N.C.

34, 47, 352 S.E.2d 673, 681 (1987). Therefore, “[w]ith the filial obligation of obedience

to a parent, the same degree of force and violence may not be required upon a person of

tender years, as would be required were the parties more nearly equal in age, size and

strength.” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶ 72} Here, the State presented E.M.’s testimony that (1) Cowgill pushed her

over the arm of the couch; (2) Cowgill took off E.M.’s clothes; (3) Cowgill told her never

to tell anyone and that no one would believe her; and (4) she did not feel safe and was

trying to get out of Cowgill’s house because she was afraid that he would hurt her.

{¶ 73} This is clearly sufficient evidence of force. Under Eskridge, the state

merely had to establish that Cowgill exerted “subtle and psychological” force over E.M.,

22.
his daughter, that was sufficient to overcome her will by fear or duress. Id. at 59. Here,

the record shows that Cowgill exerted psychological duress over E.M. to prevent her

from disclosing the abuse, and that E.M. was afraid of her father. And even if Eskridge

did not apply, courts have found sufficient force to support a conviction under R.C.

2907.02(A)(2) where, like here, defendants engaged in combinations of minimal physical

force (e.g., pushing and pulling), removing the victim’s clothing, and laying on top of the

victim after the victim expressed disinterest in or discomfort with the sexual contact. E.g.,

Hartman (defendant pushed adult victim onto a bed, removed her clothes, laid on top of

her, and pulled her into a shower); Muller (defendant removed intoxicated adult victim’s

clothes and did not stop intercourse when victim “batted at him”); State v. El–Berri,

2008–Ohio–3539 (8th Dist. ) (defendant bent 16–year-old victim over a couch, removed

her clothes, and engaged in vaginal intercourse with her); State v. Rupp, 2007–Ohio–1561

(7th Dist.) (defendant removed adult victim’s clothing, laid on top of her, and engaged in

vaginal intercourse with her while she attempted to push him away and told him “no”);

State v. Shannon, 2004–Ohio–1669 (11th Dist.) (defendant pushed down 15–year-old

victim’s partially-removed pants, laid on top of her, and proceeded with intercourse after

she replied “uh-uh” to him asking “Is this okay?”). Thus, the record in this case provides

sufficient evidence that Cowgill compelled E.M. to submit to sexual conduct by “force.”

{¶ 74} In sum, the testimony provided by the State’s witnesses provides sufficient

evidence that Cowgill penetrated E.M. and compelled her to submit to intercourse by

force.

23.
{¶ 75} Accordingly, we find Cowgill’s first assignment of error not well-taken.

B. Manifest Weight

{¶ 76} When reviewing a claim that a verdict is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, the appellate court must weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences,

consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether the jury clearly lost its way

in resolving evidentiary conflicts so as to create such a manifest miscarriage of justice

that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at

387, citing State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983). “[W]e do not view

the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. Instead, we sit as a ‘thirteenth juror’

and scrutinize ‘the factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.’” State v.

Robinson, 2012–Ohio–6068, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.), quoting Thompkins at 388. Reversal on

manifest weight grounds is reserved for “the exceptional case in which the evidence

weighs heavily against the conviction.” Thompkins at 387, quoting Martin at 175.

{¶ 77} Although under a manifest weight standard we consider the credibility of

witnesses, we extend special deference to the jury’s credibility determinations given that

it is the jury that has the benefit of seeing the witnesses testify, observing their facial

expressions and body language, hearing their voice inflections, and discerning qualities

such as hesitancy, equivocation, and candor. State v. Fell, 2012–Ohio–616, *3 (6th Dist.).

{¶ 78} In his argument that his rape conviction is against the manifest weight of

the evidence, Cowgill focuses on E.M.’s forgetfulness and lack of details in her

testimony, as well as her behavioral issues. He notes that E.M. changed her story and

24.
recanted her allegation against him. Additionally, Cowgill emphasizes that E.M. knew

where he kept the condoms in his bedroom drawer and argues that this supports his belief

that she would have had ample time and opportunity to access the dresser and put her

DNA on the condom and maintains his belief that she put her DNA there because she was

suicidal and he was keeping her from killing herself.

{¶ 79} Additionally, Cowgill goes on to point out that Selbe, the BCI agent, could

not say how the DNA came to be on the condom and that DNA could have transferred

from item to item. He also emphasizes that there was dirt and debris found on the

condom.

{¶ 80} In response, the State contends that E.M. could recall the details of the July

3 offense, and compare her memory of this event to the offenses for which Cowgill was

acquitted. Notably, the State highlights that E.M. testified that Cowgill always used a

condom and told police where they could be found. Furthermore, the State notes that

Cowgill’s bedroom door was usually locked and E.M. testified that she never touched the

condoms. In addition to the testimony, the State highlights the DNA analysis which

found both Cowgill and E.M.’s DNA on the outside of the tested condom.

{¶ 81} While we consider the credibility of witnesses in our manifest weight

review, “we must nonetheless extend special deference to the jury’s credibility

determinations given that it is the jury who has the benefit of seeing the witnesses testify,

observing their facial expressions and body language, hearing their voice inflections, and

25.
discerning qualities such as hesitancy, equivocation, and candor.” (Citations omitted.)

State v. Glaze, 2019-Ohio-53, ¶ 21 (6th Dist.).

{¶ 82} Here, while Cowgill is correct that the BCI technician could not state

exactly how E.M.’s DNA came to be on the condom, she also testified that based on her

knowledge, she would not expect E.M.’s DNA to be on the condom if it were solely

touch DNA. And while Selbe admitted that there was some dirt and debris on the

condom, she emphasized that she was still able to get a strong DNA reading.

{¶ 83} Additionally, Cowgill cross-examined E.M. and the other State witnesses,

and had the opportunity to challenge the evidence presented by the State. Ultimately, the

jury chose to believe E.M. over Cowgill. We cannot say that it lost its way or created a

manifest miscarriage of justice in doing so. We find, therefore, that Cowgill’s conviction

of rape is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶ 84} Accordingly, we find Cowgill’s second assignment of error not well-taken.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 85} Sufficient evidence of sexual conduct was presented by the State to support

Cowgill’s conviction of rape. Additionally, Cowgill’s conviction was not against the

manifest weight of the evidence—the jury made credibility determinations in favor of the

State, and we do not find that it lost its way in doing so.

{¶ 86} Accordingly, we find Cowgill’s assignments of error not well-taken, and we

affirm the April 17, 2025 judgment of the Fulton County Court of Common Pleas.

26.
Cowgill is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal under App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.

---

Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.

---

JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

27.