Background
Darien Lee Portman was indicted on April 14, 2025, on 21 counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor under R.C. 2907.321(A)(1). Following a jury trial, he was convicted on all counts on October 28, 2025. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences on Counts 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, and 19, with the remaining counts running concurrently, resulting in an indefinite sentence of 24 to 26 years. Portman was also classified as a Tier II sex offender.
The charges stemmed from a search warrant executed at Portman’s Springfield home on October 4, 2022, where detectives recovered a rose-colored Samsung cell phone from his bedroom. Special Agent Jason Kearns of Homeland Security Investigations conducted a forensic analysis and testified that he found 474 images of child sexual abuse material on the device. Kearns explained that 21 specific images formed the basis of the indictment, most of which had been downloaded using the TOR application to access the dark web. The phone contained email accounts associated with Portman, including redmoonphotography123@gmail.com, and had been factory reset on September 2, 2020, with the images downloaded after that reset.
The Court’s Holding
Writing for the court, Judge Mary K. Huffman addressed six assignments of error and affirmed the convictions. First, the court rejected Portman’s sufficiency and manifest weight challenges. The court held that the jury reasonably concluded Portman “created” obscene material by downloading the images, finding that each download completed the offense under R.C. 2907.321(A)(1). The court noted that Kearns testified the images required deliberate action to download and could not be stored without user intent. The court also found the victims were clearly minors under R.C. 2907.322(B)(3), which allows the trier of fact to infer minority from the material’s representation.
Second, the court found no abuse of discretion regarding limiting instructions. Although Portman did not request an instruction during the State’s opening statement—waiving all but plain error—the trial court twice instructed the jury that evidence of additional images beyond the 21 charged counts was admissible only to show knowledge or absence of mistake, not propensity. Third, the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Evid.R. 611 in allowing the State to recall Detective Crews to clarify testimony regarding email addresses, as this merely corrected an oversight.
Fourth, the court rejected four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. The court found defense counsel’s decisions not to retain an expert, not to request specific jury instructions on “create,” “reproduce,” and “publish,” to make certain concessions during voir dire and opening statements, and not to object to specific testimony were tactical decisions that did not demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice. Fifth, because no individual errors were established, the cumulative error doctrine did not apply. Finally, the court held that Portman’s 24-year sentence, which fell within the statutory range of R.C. 2929.14(A)(2)(a), did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, as the individual sentences were not grossly disproportionate to the offenses.
Key Takeaways
- Downloading child sexual abuse material constitutes “creating” the material under Ohio’s pandering statute, R.C. 2907.321(A)(1), and each download completes the offense.
- Expert testimony is not required to establish that depicted individuals are minors; the trier of fact may infer minority from the material itself under R.C. 2907.322(B)(3).
- Failure to request a limiting instruction on other-acts evidence waives all but plain error, and tactical decisions by defense counsel regarding objections, expert witnesses, and jury instructions generally do not constitute ineffective assistance.
- A sentence within the statutory range that is not grossly disproportionate to the offense does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, even when aggregate consecutive sentences result in a lengthy prison term.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Ohio courts will treat the act of downloading illicit images as “creation” under the pandering statute, rejecting arguments that the defendant must have physically produced the original image. The ruling also underscores the high deference afforded to trial counsel’s strategic decisions, particularly regarding whether to object to evidence or request specific jury instructions.
Additionally, the case illustrates the application of the “thirteenth juror” standard for manifest weight review, emphasizing that appellate courts will not disturb verdicts when evidence is susceptible to multiple interpretations consistent with guilt. The affirmation of the 24-year sentence signals that Ohio courts continue to uphold lengthy aggregate sentences for pandering convictions when individual counts fall within statutory ranges.