Background
Billy Joe Teter and N.M., his former romantic partner, became involved in a physical altercation after Teter accused her of cheating and the two struggled over her cell phone. N.M. testified that Teter grabbed and cupped her breasts, then grabbed her wrist, held her down, and inserted two fingers into her vagina while saying, “I get what I want.” Police documented injuries including bruising on her arm and wrist.
A Cuyahoga County jury acquitted Teter of rape but convicted him of gross sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.05(A)(1). The trial court sentenced him to two years of community control, Tier I sex-offender registration, and no contact with N.M. On appeal, Teter challenged the denial of his Crim.R. 29 acquittal motions, arguing insufficient evidence of sexual contact for sexual gratification and of force or threat of force.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the court held that a rational jury could find sexual contact. The jury could infer a sexual purpose from Teter’s cupping or grabbing of N.M.’s breasts and from the alleged digital penetration of her vagina accompanied by his statement, “I get what I want.” Direct evidence of sexual arousal or gratification was not required.
The court also held that the evidence supported the force element. The sexual contact occurred amid a physical struggle, and N.M. testified that Teter held her down and restrained her wrist while inserting his fingers into her vagina. Her testimony, corroborated by observed bruising, was sufficient evidence of force overcoming her will. The rape acquittal did not undermine the gross-sexual-imposition conviction because the counts were separate, the indictment and instructions did not limit the gross-sexual-imposition count to breast touching, and inconsistent verdicts on separate counts are permissible.
Key Takeaways
- A jury may infer sexual purpose from the nature and circumstances of contact with an erogenous zone; direct proof of arousal or gratification is unnecessary.
- Evidence that a defendant restrained and held down the victim during sexual contact can establish force for gross sexual imposition.
- An acquittal on rape does not require reversal of a gross-sexual-imposition conviction arising from the same episode.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the breadth of circumstantial proof available to establish sexual purpose and force in gross-sexual-imposition cases. It also confirms that prosecutors need not be bound by a closing-argument characterization of a count when the indictment and jury instructions do not restrict the charged sexual contact to a particular act.