The Akron Legal News

Court upholds kidnapping, sexual battery convictions

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 30, 2014

The judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas was recently affirmed by a three-judge appellate panel in Ohio’s 8th District Court of Appeals.

Defendant George Woods appealed his convictions for kidnapping and sexual battery.

He presented a rare argument when he claimed the trial court should not have merged his offenses for sentencing and challenged the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.

The district’s appellate panel found no merit to Woods’ appeal.

Woods’ convictions stemmed from an incident that took place in 1993.

According to case summary, the victim, a 26-year-old female, was a drug user and occasionally engaged in prostitution in exchange for drugs.

The victim testified that, on July 6, she had been drinking all day with her mother.

That evening, she left her mother’s house and was walking around the neighborhood when she saw a man she identified only as Richard. She told the trial court that she asked Richard for a ride home.

As she was getting into the car, two males carrying shotguns approached. The victim stated that she saw the males pump the guns and “do the click-click.”

According to her, one of the assailants grabbed Richard, threw him in the back seat and began beating him.

The other grabbed her and forced her to perform oral sex in the front seat of the car. She stated that she “could not recall” if she was vaginally raped.

After the attack, Richard took the victim to her sister’s house.

The sister testified that the victim arrived in a state of disarray and crying. She called the police and the victim was taken to the hospital but no suspects were named as a result of the initial police investigation.

In 2012, DNA tests revealed Woods’ DNA on the victim’s shorts.

Christina Cottom, a detective in the sex crimes unit of the Cleveland Police Department, testified that the case had been cold until DNA testing became available.

After the DNA match, Cottom presented a photo array to the victim, who was unable to identify her assailant.

Cottom also interviewed Woods and a video of the interview was played for the jury at his trial.

During the interview, Woods stated that Richard owed money to his cousin, Eric Hill. Woods accompanied Hill to collect the debt.

He stated that, when he and Hill approached Richard and the victim, the couple was exiting a known drug house.

An argument ensued and Woods said he pulled out a gun.

As payment for his debt, Richard allegedly “offered up” the victim.

Woods stated the victim “wasn’t with it” but he and Hill “started doing what we was going wanting to do.”

In the video, Woods told Cottom that he handed Hill his gun and “went on and raped her.”

At trial, Woods’ story changed slightly. He maintained that Richard offered the victim as payment for his debt but stated that the victim voluntarily got in the car and undressed.

He testified that he and Hill took turns having consensual sex with her.

At the time of the trial, Hill was deceased.

The jury eventually found Woods guilty of sexual battery and kidnapping while threatening physical harm with a weapon and having a firearm on his person.

The convictions were merged for sentencing and the trial court imposed a maximum sentence of 10 to 25 years in prison pursuant to the sentencing statutes in place in 1993, when the crimes occurred.

The sentence was ordered to run consecutive to an unrelated prison sentence and Woods was classified as a sexually oriented offender.

In his appeal to the 8th District court, Woods clamed the trial court erred by merging the kidnapping offense into the sexual battery conviction.

“Although it is highly unusual that the defendant would challenge a merger, as opposed to the non-merger of offenses, we nonetheless find no error by the trial court,” wrote Presiding Judge Sean Gallagher for the court of appeals.

The appellate panel considered Woods’ conduct and whether or not his offenses were such that they could have been committed by the same conduct and with a single state of mind.

“If we answer both questions affirmatively, then the offenses are allied offenses of similar import and will be merged,” wrote Judge Gallagher.

In Woods’ case, the court of appeals found that the restraint of the victim, or the kidnapping, was “merely incidental” to the battery and that it was not committed with a separate animus.

“The restraint of the victim was not prolonged, secretive or substantial and did not result in an increased risk of harm to the victim,” wrote Judge Gallagher. “As such, the trial court properly allowed the state to elect which count to elect for sentencing purposes.”

The appellate panel went on to rule that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction and that the jury did not lose its way in delivering a verdict.

Woods also presented an assignment of error in which he argued that Richard should have been charged as an aider and abettor.

The court of appeals noted that Woods “lacks authority” to challenge the state’s failure to charge anyone.

The judgment of the Cuyahoga County court was affirmed with judges Kathleen Keough and Eileen A. Gallagher concurring.

The case is cited State v. Woods, 2014-Ohio-4484.

[Back]