State v. Wells - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as State v. Wells, 91 Ohio St.3d 32, 2001-Ohio-3.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. WELLS, APPELLEE.
[Cite as State v. Wells (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 32.]
Criminal law -- Sufficient evidence of anal intercourse, for purposes of the crime
of anal rape under R.C. 2907.02, is present, when.
(Nos. 00-357 and 00-415 -- Submitted November 15, 2000 -- Decided
January 31, 2001).
APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Montgomery
County, No. 17501.
__________________

MOYER, C.J. On April 14, 1998, M. found the defendant, Thomas
Randall Wells, who was renting a room from M., crouched over her seven-year-
old son, C. After Wells realized that M. was present, he immediately jumped up
and left for work. When M. talked with her son after Wells left, C. indicated that
Wells had been molesting him for months.

On April 23, 1998, Wells was indicted on one count of attempted rape
pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and 2923.02(A) and two counts of rape
pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b). The bill of particulars revealed that one of the
two rape counts involved oral sex and the other involved anal sex. At trial C.
testified that, among other things, Wells attempted to insert his penis into C.'s
anus but was unable to. C. further testified that Wells did touch his buttocks with
his penis. At his first trial, the trial court entered a judgment of acquittal on Count
One (attempted rape), and the jury deadlocked and was unable to reach a verdict
as to the remaining counts. Following his second trial, Wells was convicted of
both the oral and anal rape of C.

On appeal, the Second District Court of Appeals reversed the conviction
for anal rape, finding that the state failed to prove penetration into C.'s anal

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
cavity, and remanded for a finding of guilt for the crime of attempted anal rape.
The court of appeals concluded that without evidence to show that the defendant's
penis penetrated the victim's anus, the defendant could be found guilty only of the
crime of attempted anal rape. The court of appeals certified its judgment to be in
conflict with a judgment of the First District Court of Appeals. The issue certified
by the court of appeals is as follows: "Bearing in mind that `penetration, however
slight, is sufficient to complete anal intercourse' R.C. 2907.01(A) is there
sufficient evidence of anal intercourse where the evidence shows at most that the
defendant's penis was inserted between the victim's buttocks, and the evidence
fails to show that the defendant's penis actually penetrated the victim's anus
itself?"

The cause is now before this court upon our determination that a conflict
exists, and also upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal.

The issue we are asked to decide requires an interpretation of R.C.
2907.01(A), which states that "[p]enetration, however slight, is sufficient to
complete * * * anal intercourse." The specific question presented is whether there
is sufficient evidence of anal intercourse where the evidence shows, at the most,
that the defendant's penis was inserted between the victim's buttocks, and the
evidence fails to show that the defendant's penis penetrated the victim's anus
itself. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

The Ohio rape statute provides:

"No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another * * * when any of
the following applies:

" * * *

"The other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the
offender knows the age of the other person." R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b).

The term "sexual conduct" is defined as "vaginal intercourse between a
male and a female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons
2

January Term, 2001

regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of
any part of the body * * * into the vaginal or anal cavity of another." R.C.
2907.01(A). The question before us asks what the General Assembly intended
through its use of the phrase "anal cavity."

In cases of statutory construction, the words used in a statute will be
accorded their common, everyday meaning unless a contrary intent is expressed.
R.C. 1.42; Lake Cty. Natl. Bank of Painesville v. Kosydar (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d
189, 191, 65 O.O.2d 404, 406, 305 N.E.2d 799, 801. To determine the common,
everyday meaning of a word, we have consistently used dictionary definitions.
See Ritchey Produce Co., Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d
194, 272-273, 707 N.E.2d 871, 926-927. When we look both to dictionary
definitions and other provisions within R.C. Chapter 2907, it is evident that the
General Assembly did not intend for contact with the buttocks alone to be
sufficient to complete the act of anal rape.

R.C. 2907.01(A) addresses insertion of any part of the body into the anal
cavity of another. The common, everyday meaning of "cavity" is "a natural
hollow place within the body." (Emphasis added.) Webster's New World
Dictionary (3 Ed.1991) 224. It would necessarily follow, therefore, that the term
"anal cavity" makes reference to the lower portion of the alimentary canal and not
the buttocks, which are not "within the body." Further, the term "intercourse" is
defined as "the sexual joining of two individuals." Webster's New World
Dictionary (3 Ed.1991) 703. When the phrases "anal intercourse" and "anal
cavity" in R.C. 2907.01(A) are read together (i.e., a sexual joining with the anal
cavity), it is apparent that penetration into the anal cavity occurs when some part
of the body or any other item is inserted into the anus.

Apart from dictionary definitions, we are also able to discern the intent of
the General Assembly from other provisions of R.C. Chapter 2907. The gross
sexual imposition statute states:
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

"No person shall have sexual contact with another * * * when any of the
following applies:

" * * *

"The other person, or one of the other persons, is less than thirteen years
of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of that person." R.C.
2907.05(A)(4).

"Sexual contact" means "any touching of an erogenous zone of another,
including without limitation the thigh, genitals, [or] buttock * * * for the purpose
of sexually arousing or gratifying either person." (Emphasis added.) R.C.
2907.01(B). The General Assembly has already, therefore, made provision for an
instance where an offender makes contact only with the buttocks.

In general, statutes will be construed to avoid unreasonable or absurd
consequences. State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Wells (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d
382, 384, 18 OBR 437, 439, 481 N.E.2d 632, 634. Moreover, we are constrained
by R.C. 2901.04(A) to liberally construe the statute in favor of the accused. To
define the phrase "anal cavity" to include the buttocks would be to subject an
offender committing only one criminal act to prosecution under two different
criminal provisions, one a first-degree felony, see R.C. 2907.02(B), and the other
a third-degree felony, see R.C. 2907.05(B). It is doubtful that the General
Assembly could have intended such an unreasonable consequence.

Based on all of the foregoing, we hold that there is sufficient evidence of
anal intercourse, for purposes of the crime of anal rape under R.C. 2907.02, where
the trier of fact finds that the defendant penetrated, however slightly, the victim's
anus with any part of the defendant's body, or with any instrument, apparatus, or
other object. If the evidence shows that the defendant made contact only with the
victim's buttocks, there is not sufficient evidence to prove the defendant guilty of
the crime of anal rape. As a corollary, where the evidence shows that the
defendant attempts to penetrate the victim's anus, and, for whatever reason, fails
4

January Term, 2001

to do so and makes contact only with the buttocks, there is sufficient evidence to
prove the defendant guilty of the crime of attempted anal rape. The decision of
the court of appeals, reversing the defendant's conviction for anal rape and
remanding the cause to the trial court for a finding of guilt on the crime of
attempted anal rape, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.

DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Todd T. Duwel, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

L. Patrick Mulligan & Associates, L.P.A.., L. Patrick Mulligan and Jay A.
Adams, for appellee.
__________________
5