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 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re J.C.

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 818
• Docket Number: 25 JE 0018

• Judges: Dickey

• Opinion

• Authorities (19)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (14.2K)

• PDF

Syllabus

JUVENILE – guilty of sexual imposition; adjudicated a delinquent child; sentenced to probation; contested hearing; sufficient evidence; the trier of fact could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of sexual imposition were proven; manifest weight; the trier of fact did not clearly lose its way in finding Appellant guilty; judgment affirmed.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as In re J.C., 2026-Ohio-818.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JEFFERSON COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF J.C.,

A DELINQUENT CHILD.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Case No. 25 JE 0018

Juvenile Appeal from the
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, of Jefferson County, Ohio
Case No. 2025-DL-00063

BEFORE:
Katelyn Dickey, Carol Ann Robb, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

JUDGMENT:
Affirmed.

Atty. Jane M. Hanlin, Jefferson County Prosecutor, and Atty. Bernard C. Battistel,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee and

Atty. Richard Hixson, for Appellant.

Dated: March 11, 2026
–2–

DICKEY, J.

{¶1} Appellant, J.C., an adjudicated delinquent child, appeals from the
August 20, 2025 judgment of the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, finding him guilty of sexual imposition, adjudicating him a delinquent child, and
sentencing him to a minimum of 90 days probation following a contested hearing. On
appeal, Appellant asserts the juvenile court erred in finding him guilty of sexual imposition
and adjudicating him a delinquent child against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the
evidence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} On June 23, 2025, an alleged delinquent child complaint was filed against
Appellant, (d.o.b. 1/26/2014), charging him with one count of sexual imposition, a
misdemeanor of the third degree in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A) and (C). Appellant was
appointed counsel and a denial was entered at his initial appearance.
{¶3} A contested hearing was held on August 18, 2025. Appellee, the State of
Ohio, called two witnesses: (1) Corey Virtue, a detective with the Jefferson County
Sheriff’s Office (“Detective Virtue”); and (2) L.S., Appellant’s fifth-grade classmate (“the
victim”).
{¶4} At that hearing, it was revealed that law enforcement responded to a call at
Stanton Elementary School regarding an incident which occurred in the lunchroom
between Appellant and the victim. Several juveniles were seated at a lunch table. Two
juveniles heard Appellant say, “[g]ive me those balls,” before Appellant reached down
and grabbed the victim’s private region. (8/18/2025 Contested Hearing Tr., p. 17). One
of the juveniles notified the lunch proctor.
{¶5} During the investigation, Detective Virtue interviewed four juvenile
witnesses plus the victim. Detective Virtue determined that two juveniles heard Appellant
make the statement, at least one of those juveniles also saw the touching, and the victim
advised Detective Virtue that Appellant grabbed his private region. Specifically, the
following exchange took place between the prosecutor and Detective Virtue on direct
examination:

Case No. 25 JE 0018
–3–

Q: [D]id [the victim] advise that [Appellant] grabbed his private
region?

A: Yes, he did.

Q: Okay. Did at least another of the four juveniles that you
interviewed advise that he witnessed . . . [Appellant] grab [the victim’s]
private area?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And how many juveniles advised that they heard
[Appellant] say, “Give me those balls”?

A: Two that I believe.

(Id. at p. 18).

{¶6} The victim testified Appellant grabbed his arm then tried to touch his “private
parts” before he pushed Appellant away. (Id. at p. 33). The victim stated that a classmate
told the lunch proctor because Appellant was trying to touch the victim “inappropriately.”
(Id. at p. 35). When questioned further regarding what “inappropriately” means to him,
the victim responded, Appellant “was trying to touch my private parts.” (Id.). The victim
was asked other questions to which he answered at least ten times that he could not
remember. See (Id. at p. 25, 29-34, 38).
{¶7} After the State rested, Appellant testified in his defense. Appellant stated
he did not inappropriately touch the victim in his privates but rather was “tickling” him on
his side and stomach. (Id. at p. 43). However, neither the victim nor any of the four
witnesses interviewed mentioned anything about tickling. Appellant also said he never
grabbed the victim’s arm. Appellant claimed he never made the statement, “[g]ive me
those balls,” to the victim. (Id. at p. 47).
{¶8} On August 20, 2025, the juvenile court found Appellant guilty of sexual
imposition as charged, adjudicated him a delinquent child, and sentenced him to a
minimum of 90 days probation. The court ordered that Appellant have no contact with

Case No. 25 JE 0018
–4–

the victim, attend school daily and complete all assignments in a timely manner, and
continue mental health counseling and follow all recommendations.
{¶9} Appellant filed a timely appeal and raises two assignments of error.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADJUDICATING J.C. A DELINQUENT
CHILD, AS THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN AN
ADJUDICATION OF DELINQUENCY FOR SEXUAL IMPOSITION
UNDER R.C. 2907.06.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADJUDICATING J.C. A DELINQUENT
CHILD, AS SUCH AN ADJUDICATION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

{¶10} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the juvenile court erred in
finding him guilty of sexual imposition and adjudicating him a delinquent child against the
sufficiency of the evidence. In his second assignment of error, Appellant contends the
court erred in finding him guilty of sexual imposition and adjudicating him a delinquent
child against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because these assignments are
interrelated, we will consider them together for ease of discussion.

“When a court reviews a record for sufficiency, ‘[t]he 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.
Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, 9 N.E.3d 930, ¶ 146, quoting
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two
of the syllabus; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d
560 (1979).

Case No. 25 JE 0018
–5–

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. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio
St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997); State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67,
2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119. . . .

The weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses are nonetheless issues for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass, 10
Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). The trier of fact “has the best
opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each witness,
something that does not translate well on the written page.” Davis v.
Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997).

State v. T.D.J., 2018-Ohio-2766, ¶ 46-48 (7th Dist.).

{¶11} “‘[C]ircumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the
same probative value.’” State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426, 447 (1997), quoting Jenks, 61
Ohio St.3d 259, paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶12} For the reasons addressed below, we determine the judgment is not against
the manifest weight of the evidence and further conclude it is supported by sufficient
evidence.
{¶13} Appellant takes issue with the juvenile court adjudicating him a delinquent
child after finding him guilty of sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A) and (C),
which states:

(A) No person shall have sexual contact with another; cause another
to have sexual contact with the offender; or cause two or more other
persons to have sexual contact when the offender knows that the sexual
contact is offensive to the other person, or one of the other persons, or is
reckless in that regard.

Case No. 25 JE 0018
–6–

...

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of sexual imposition, a
misdemeanor of the third degree.

R.C. 2907.06(A) and (C).

{¶14} “Sexual contact” is defined as “any touching of an erogenous zone of
another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, if the
person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either
person.” R.C. 2907.01(B).
{¶15} Appellant asserts there is insufficient evidence to show that his contact with
the victim was “sexual contact,” i.e., an actual touching of the victim’s “private parts” “for
the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person.” R.C. 2907.01(B); (12/1/2025
Appellant’s Brief, p. 7, 10).
{¶16} Again, several juveniles were seated at a lunch table at Stanton Elementary
School. Two juveniles heard Appellant say, “[g]ive me those balls,” before Appellant
reached down and grabbed the victim’s private region. (8/18/2025 Contested Hearing
Tr., p. 17). One of the juveniles notified the lunch proctor.
{¶17} During the investigation, Detective Virtue interviewed four juvenile
witnesses plus the victim. Detective Virtue determined that two juveniles heard Appellant
make the statement, at least one of those juveniles also saw the touching, and the victim
advised Detective Virtue that Appellant grabbed his private region. Specifically, the
following exchange took place between the prosecutor and Detective Virtue on direct
examination:

Q: [D]id [the victim] advise that [Appellant] grabbed his private
region?

A: Yes, he did.

Q: Okay. Did at least another of the four juveniles that you
interviewed advise that he witnessed . . . [Appellant] grab [the victim’s]
private area?

Case No. 25 JE 0018
–7–

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And how many juveniles advised that they heard
[Appellant] say, “Give me those balls”?

A: Two that I believe.

(Id. at p. 18).

{¶18} Thus, there was sufficient evidence presented which readily demonstrates
that Appellant touched an erogenous zone of the victim, to wit: his genitals and/or his
pubic region, when Appellant knew it would be offensive to the victim or was reckless in
that regard. See R.C. 2907.01(B); R.C. 2907.06(A); State v. Ruschak, 2025-Ohio-2303,
¶ 12 (11th Dist.).
{¶19} After finding sexual contact, we will next examine the evidence presented
regarding Appellant’s purpose. “Because the Ohio Revised Code does not define ‘sexual
arousal’ or ‘sexual gratification,’ courts have grappled with the subject.” State v. Pokhrel,
2024-Ohio-3073, ¶ 44 (5th Dist.).

While the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification is an essential
element of the offense of gross sexual imposition and sexual imposition,
there is no requirement that there be direct testimony regarding sexual
arousal or gratification. See In re D.S., Warren App. Nos. CA2004-04-036
and CA2004-04-046, 2005-Ohio-1803, ¶ 19, citing In re Anderson (1996),
116 Ohio App.3d 441, 444, 688 N.E.2d 545. Whether the touching was
performed for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification is a question of
fact to be inferred from the type, nature, and circumstances of the contact.
Anderson at 443-444, 688 N.E.2d 545; State v. Mundy (1994), 99 Ohio
App.3d 275, 289, 650 N.E.2d 502. In determining the defendant’s purpose,
the trier of fact may infer what the defendant’s motivation was in making the
physical contact with the victim. Id.; State v. Cobb (1991), 81 Ohio App.3d
179, 610 N.E.2d 1009.

State v. Meredith, 2005-Ohio-062, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.).

Case No. 25 JE 0018
–8–

{¶20} Appellant’s motivation for touching the victim and this element of purpose
for sexual arousal or gratification may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Ruschak at
¶ 13, citing State v. Breland, 2004-Ohio-7238, ¶ 24 (11th Dist.) (“‘[it] is sufficient to present
circumstantial evidence from which the finder of fact can infer the purpose of the act was
for sexual gratification; no direct evidence of the accused’s mental state is required’)
(citation omitted)[.]”
{¶21} As stated, the victim testified Appellant grabbed his arm then tried to touch
his “private parts” before he pushed Appellant away. (8/18/2025 Contested Hearing Tr.,
p. 33). The victim stated that a classmate told the lunch proctor because Appellant was
trying to touch the victim “inappropriately.” (Id. at p. 35). When questioned further
regarding what “inappropriately” means to him, the victim responded, Appellant “was
trying to touch my private parts.” (Id.). The victim was asked other questions to which he
answered at least ten times that he could not remember. See (Id. at p. 25, 29-34, 38).
{¶22} There is no evidence to establish that Appellant’s conduct was accidental,
inadvertent, or involuntary. See In re Whitlock, 2008-Ohio-4672, ¶ 1, 24 (11th Dist.)
(affirming the trial court’s finding of the appellant to be a delinquent child due to his
commission of the offense of gross sexual imposition); Ruschak, 2025-Ohio-2303, at
¶ 15 (11th Dist.).
{¶23} In addition, Detective Virtue determined that two juveniles heard Appellant
make the statement, “[g]ive me those balls,” at least one of those juveniles also saw the
touching in the victim’s erogenous zone, and the victim advised Detective Virtue that
Appellant grabbed his private region. (8/18/2025 Contested Hearing Tr., p. 17). The trier
of fact could infer from Appellant’s vulgar statement that the motivation for his actions was
the desire for sexual arousal or gratification. See In re Whitlock at ¶ 24; Ruschak at ¶ 15,
quoting State v. Armstead, 2021-Ohio-4000, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.) (“‘[c]ourts have held that the
sexual arousal or gratification element “may be inferred when there is no innocent, i.e.,
nonsexual, explanation for the offender’s conduct”’) (citations omitted).”
{¶24} It is immaterial that the victim was offended instead of aroused or that
Appellant was not aroused. Ruschak at ¶ 15.

A conviction “does not require proof of actual arousal or gratification.”
(Citations omitted.) State v. Slusarczyk, 2024-Ohio-4790, ¶ 66 (8th Dist.).

Case No. 25 JE 0018
–9–

“If the trier of fact determines that the defendant was motivated by desires
of sexual arousal or gratification, and that the contact occurred, then the
trier of fact may conclude that the object of the defendant’s motivation was
achieved.” (Citations omitted.) Id.

Ruschak at ¶ 15.

{¶25} In contrast to the foregoing authorities, Appellant cites to In re Redmond,
2007-Ohio-3125 (3d Dist.) in support of his position that the juvenile court erred in finding
him guilty of sexual imposition. In that case, the juvenile put his hand up the victim’s skirt
and touched her vaginal area, as well as her upper thigh or buttocks, while they were
walking in the halls of their school between classes. Id. at ¶ 2, 9. There was some conflict
as to whether the juvenile used his hand or a book when he lifted the victim’s skirt. Id. at
¶ 9. The juvenile testified he was just joking and “playing around” and “was not thinking
in a sexual manner.” Id. In fact, the assistant principal testified that the juvenile was
known to be somewhat of a “clown.” Id. at ¶ 10. The juvenile court reversed and
remanded, finding insufficient evidence of sexual imposition. Id. at ¶ 11-12. Unlike In re
Redmond, there is no evidence in the present case which establishes that Appellant is
known to be a “clown,” that he was just joking or playing around, or was not thinking in a
sexual manner.
{¶26} Pursuant to Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, as addressed, there is sufficient
evidence upon which the trier of fact could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable
doubt that the elements of sexual imposition were proven.
{¶27} Also, the trier of fact chose to believe the State’s witnesses, namely
Detective Virtue. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus. Based on
the evidence presented, as previously stated, the trier of fact did not clearly lose its way
in adjudicating Appellant a delinquent child after finding him guilty of sexual imposition in
violation of R.C. 2907.06(A) and (C). Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387.
{¶28} Appellant’s first and second assignments of error are without merit.

Case No. 25 JE 0018
– 10 –

CONCLUSION

{¶29} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s assignments of error are not well-
taken. The August 20, 2025 judgment of the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division, finding Appellant guilty of sexual imposition, adjudicating him a
delinquent child, and sentencing him to a minimum of 90 days probation following a
contested hearing is affirmed.

Robb, J., concurs.

Hanni, J., concurs.

Case No. 25 JE 0018
[Cite as In re J.C., 2026-Ohio-818.]

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error
are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of
the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, of Jefferson County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs to be waived.
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that
a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into
execution.

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.