Background
On March 4, 2025, Ashton W. Stotts’ husband Wesley invited their neighbor Alexus Allen to their home. The three consumed alcohol and socialized. What occurred that evening became the subject of sharply conflicting testimony at trial. Alexus testified she blacked out during the gathering and had no memory of consenting to sexual contact with either Wesley or Appellant. She recalled waking to find Wesley engaged in sexual acts with her while Appellant was present on the bed, reportedly telling Wesley to stop. Appellant offered a contradictory account, testifying that Alexus initiated discussion of a threesome, appeared coherent and knowing throughout, and actively participated in consensual sexual activity.
Following the encounter, Alexus called her father for a ride home. Her father observed her in apparent distress. Later that morning, Alexus reported the assault to her husband. She then consulted a physician and underwent a sexual assault examination, during which a SANE nurse noted physical findings of redness, pain and tenderness. Toxicology testing of Alexus’ blood revealed no alcohol but her urine tested positive for Alprazolam (Xanax), its metabolite, and marijuana metabolite.
Appellant was indicted on three counts of rape, three counts of sexual battery, and one count of gross sexual imposition. Before trial, the State dismissed the rape and gross sexual imposition counts. The jury found Appellant guilty on all three sexual battery charges on May 27, 2025. Appellant appealed on grounds of insufficient evidence and manifest weight of the evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant’s conviction. Appellant faced charges under Ohio R.C. 2907.03(A)(2) (sexual battery) and R.C. 2923.03 (complicity). Under the complicity statute, the State had to prove that Appellant aided, assisted, encouraged or cooperated with the principal offender (Wesley) and shared his criminal intent. Criminal intent can be inferred from presence, companionship and conduct before and after the offense.
Applying the sufficiency standard, the court noted that an appellate court asks only whether any evidence could support each element of the charged offense—not whether the State’s case was convincing. Here, 15 witnesses testified and the court admitted forensic, photographic and video evidence. Critically, Appellant and Alexus gave directly contradictory accounts of the evening. The appellate court held that resolving such conflicts and assessing witness credibility is exclusively the jury’s function. Inconsistent testimony, memory defects and credibility challenges are matters for the trier of fact, not grounds for appellate reversal.
Regarding manifest weight of the evidence, the court held that the jury did not “clearly lose its way” when it resolved evidentiary conflicts against Appellant. The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that Appellant knew Alexus’ ability to appraise the nature of her own conduct was substantially impaired—the statutory element required for sexual battery. The court found no manifest miscarriage of justice.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts defer substantially to jury credibility determinations in both sufficiency and manifest weight reviews; inconsistent witness testimony alone does not warrant reversal.
- Complicity liability requires proof that the defendant aided or encouraged the principal and shared criminal intent; presence and companionship at the scene, coupled with knowing assistance or encouragement, suffices.
- In sexual battery cases involving an allegedly incapacitated person, the State must prove the aider-abetter knew of the victim’s impaired capacity to appraise conduct, not that the principal offender knew.
- Physical and toxicological evidence, combined with witness testimony about the victim’s condition, can support a jury finding that capacity was substantially impaired.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the high bar appellants must clear to overturn jury verdicts on evidentiary grounds. By reaffirming that credibility disputes are resolved by juries—not appellate judges—the court established that appellate review of sufficiency and manifest weight is narrow and deferential. The opinion will have limited impact on future cases unless they present nearly identical factual scenarios or raise novel legal questions about the complicity statute’s application to sexual battery.
The decision addresses a sensitive intersection of criminal law: how courts handle sharply disputed factual accounts in sexual assault cases where the accused raises a consent defense. By holding that the jury’s rejection of Appellant’s version did not constitute reversible error, the court emphasized that juries are positioned to assess demeanor, consistency and plausibility. Practitioners should note that inconsistencies in a complainant’s account—whether to medical personnel, police or in trial testimony—do not automatically defeat culpability findings if the jury finds the core account credible.