Login | April 13, 2026
11th District Court of Appeals affirms child sex case
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: July 2, 2020
The 11th District Court of Appeals has found that a Lake County trial court did not improperly exclude evidence of a 15-year-old victim’s prior sexual abuse pursuant to the rape shield statute.
Donald J. Stuart appealed his convictions for rape, kidnapping, sexual battery and menacing by stalking following a nine-day jury trial. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison.
The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding the trial court properly excluded evidence of the victim’s prior sexual abuse from another male as it was highly prejudicial and immaterial.
Prior to the jury trial, the trial court spoke with both attorneys on the record as to the state’s motion in limine regarding the victim’s prior sexual abuse history. The court granted the state’s motion, finding that the rape shield statute precluded any sexual activity of a victim, whether consensual or nonconsensual, from being introduced. The trial court found there were no allegations that the victim made false accusations. It also found that the evidence of the prior sexual abuse the defense sought to introduce was unrelated and inadmissible.
The appellate court agreed.
“Mr. Stuart argues the trial court should have conducted an in-camera hearing so that the court could have questioned the victim regarding her prior sexual abuse,” appellate Judge Mary Jane Trapp said in her opinion. “Prior to trial and on the record, the trial court conferenced with the state and defense counsel regarding the state’s motion pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(D). The trial court confirmed with both that there was no doubt J.S.’s prior sexual abuse was not false accusations.
“… Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s holding in State v. Boggs, 63 Ohio St.3d 418 (1992), a trial court is only required to conduct an in camera hearing when there is a possibility that the victim made false accusations of sexual abuse or activity to ascertain whether sexual activity was really involved, and, if so, whether cross-examination on the accusation would be prohibited by R.C. 2907.02(D), or whether the accusation was totally unfounded and therefore could be inquired into pursuant to Evid.R. 608(B).”
The 11th District also found the trial court properly admitted evidence of Stuart’s other acts of grooming and manipulation as it was directly relevant and part of the offenses charged.
The state filed several motions in limine to present evidence of Stuart’s other acts. One dealt with the prior sexual activities/abuse he engaged in with a minor when he, himself, was a minor. The subject of the state’s second motion in limine dealt with the grooming and manipulative behaviors he advanced toward J.S.
J.S. testified at trial that Stuart laid down in bed with her and read her stories, attempted to snuggle with her, showed her pornography, digitally penetrated her for several and made inappropriate sexual comments to her, Trapp wrote, adding that a nurse explained that “grooming” is a term used to describe the manipulative behavior a person engages in to prepare the child for sexual abuse and discourage the child from disclosing the abuse.
“… The probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,” Trapp stated. “Rather than solely inflaming the jury and appealing only to its emotions, the evidence of Mr. Stuart’s grooming of J.S. provided a basis for the jury to recognize his ongoing scheme for sexual activity with J.S.”
On June 12, 2013, Mentor Detective Colleen Petro received information that another officer was taking a sexual assault report from a minor child victim against Stuart.
At the police station, Petro asked J.S. if she would be willing to make a monitored phone call to Stuart. On the call, J.S. is heard asking Stuart why he would abuse her, specifically mentioning the instances of rape and the sexual comments he made to her. Stuart denied her allegations, but apologized, saying, “it was wrong,” and also saying said he could not recall what happened but that “anything is possible.”
Appellate judges Cynthia Westcott Rice and Thomas R. Wright concurred.
The case is cited State v. Stuart, 2020-Ohio-3239.