The Fifth Appellate District Court of Ohio has affirmed the conviction of Shane Art on two counts of gross sexual imposition. Art was found guilty by a jury in the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas and sentenced to a sixty-month prison term on each count, with the sentences to be served concurrently.
The Charges and Trial
The charges stemmed from allegations that Art, who lived with the victim and her mother, engaged in sexual contact with a minor under the age of thirteen. The trial, which began on March 4, 2025, presented evidence that included testimony from the victim’s grandfather, B.K., who reported the victim’s distress to the authorities. A forensic interview conducted by Melissa Kapp, a social worker and certified forensic interviewer at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, was also presented. During the interview, the victim, E.D., described incidents involving Art, including touching her on her buttocks and rubbing his penis on her clothing. The interview was recorded and played for the jury over Art’s objection.
Further evidence was presented by Jessica Newland, a Pediatric Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (PSANE), who conducted a medical examination of E.D. and collected biological evidence. Although no physical trauma was observed, Newland explained that the absence of injury does not preclude sexual contact. DNA analysis by the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) revealed a YSTR profile consistent with Art and his paternal male relatives from a swab collected from E.D.’s right buttock.
Art chose not to present any evidence in his defense. The jury found him guilty on both counts of gross sexual imposition.
Art’s Arguments on Appeal
Art appealed the trial court’s decision, presenting two main arguments. First, he claimed that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that the convictions were against the weight of the evidence. Second, he argued that his sentence was improperly enhanced because the trial court considered his continued assertion of innocence.
Addressing the Sufficiency of the Evidence
The appellate court thoroughly addressed Art’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. Art argued that the State failed to call the victim as a witness, that the victim had a history of making false allegations, that the DNA test results were not definitive, and that his DNA could have been transferred through innocent contact.
The court reviewed the legal standards for assessing the sufficiency of evidence. It emphasized that the prosecution must prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that in reviewing a sufficiency challenge, it examines the statutory elements of the offense in light of the evidence presented at trial and determines whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court noted that Art was charged with gross sexual imposition, which requires proof that he had sexual contact with a person under thirteen years old. “Sexual contact” is defined as any touching of an erogenous zone for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
The court addressed Art’s concerns about the victim not testifying directly. The court cited the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to confront witnesses. However, the court found that the victim’s statements were properly admitted through the forensic interview and the testimony of the interviewer, Melissa Kapp. The court relied on the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in *State v. Arnold* to determine the admissibility of statements made during interviews at child-advocacy centers. The *Arnold* framework distinguishes between statements made for forensic purposes and those made for medical diagnosis and treatment. The court found that the victim’s statements about Art touching her were necessary for medical assessment and therefore admissible. Even if some statements were admitted in error, the court determined the error was harmless.
Addressing the DNA evidence, the court pointed out that the YSTR testing of the swab collected from E.D.’s right buttock produced a profile consistent with Art and his paternal male relatives. The court acknowledged that the defense argued the DNA could have been transferred through innocent contact, but the court found that the jury, as the sole judge of credibility, was free to weigh that explanation against the other evidence and reject it if they found it unconvincing.
The court ultimately concluded that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supported the jury’s finding that Art engaged in sexual contact with the victim, knowing she was under thirteen.
Addressing the Weight of the Evidence
Art also argued that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. This challenge focuses on whether the jury clearly lost its way in resolving conflicts in the evidence. The appellate court explained that it acts as a “thirteenth juror” in such cases and can overturn a verdict if it disagrees with the trier of fact’s conclusion. However, the court found no compelling indication that the jury lost its way or created a manifest miscarriage of justice.
The Sentencing Argument
Art’s second argument focused on the sentencing. He claimed the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence because he maintained his innocence and declined to express remorse.
The appellate court reviewed the legal standards for sentencing, noting that sentences must be reasonably calculated to protect the public and punish the offender. The court also cited *State v. Brunson*, which held that it is error for a trial court to consider a defendant’s silence as a demonstration of a lack of remorse when the defendant has maintained his or her innocence.
However, the appellate court determined that the trial court’s sentencing decision was based on proper statutory factors, including the victim’s young age, the psychological harm inflicted on the victim, the fact that Art occupied a position of trust, and his prior conviction. The court found that Art had not shown that the outcome would have been different if the trial court had disregarded any inference of a lack of remorse.
The Court’s Decision
Based on these findings, the Fifth Appellate District Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. The court overruled both of Art’s assignments of error.