Court of Appeals upholds conviction in Highland County rape case
Lead Summary
By
Caitlin Forsha-crforsha@gmail.com
The Fourth District Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction of a Middletown woman charged with raping a child in Highland County.
Miranda Smith, 29, was charged in December 2019 with two counts of rape, a first-degree felony; two counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor, a second-degree felony; burglary, a second-degree felony; and theft, a first-degree misdemeanor.
Smith entered a plea of no contest to the burglary charge and to an amended count of rape March 12, 2020, according to court records. The other charges were dismissed. Another defendant charged in the same indictment, Wesley Moore of Hillsboro, also pleaded no contest to rape and burglary.
On March 19, 2020, Smith was sentenced to a definite determinate term of two years for burglary, consecutive to a sentence of 10 years to life for the rape charge. Smith was also ordered to register as a Tier III sex offender.
According to her indictment, the charges for which Smith was sentenced include an alleged burglary in which she “did by force, stealth or deception trespass … with purpose to commit in the habitation a criminal offense” (theft)” in a victim’s home on or about the period of Feb. 1, 2017 through Feb. 1, 2019. The rape charge involved a juvenile victim and allegedly occurred between June 1 and Sept. 1, 2019.
Smith, who was represented by Timothy Young, Patrick Clark and Max Hersch of the Ohio Public Defender’s office, argued only the rape conviction on appeal, saying that “the trial court violated her right to due process when it found her guilty of rape in the absence of sufficient evidence.”
Presiding Judge Jason P. Smith wrote that the appellate court found “no merit to her sole assignment of error” in the Court of Appeals decision, which was posted Dec. 15.
According to the court’s decision, Smith “contends that the facts that formed the basis of her plea did not sufficiently allege the subsection of rape under which she was charged.” The defendant’s argument had to do with the language of the O.R.C., which she argued “does not criminalize [her conduct],” according to the decision. It was argued that the allegations more closely met the definition of gross sexual imposition.
The State, represented by Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins, argued “that the conduct at issue constituted sexual conduct and that ‘it is unfathomable that it was not the purpose and intent of the legislature to proscribe acts such as those committed herein’” under the Ohio Revised Code.
The Court of Appeals wrote that neither the parties nor the appellate court were able “to locate another case in Ohio involving [the] particular type of conduct” at issue in this case. However, “Smith has admitted to the facts surrounding this incident and simply argues that these facts do not meet the statutory definition of rape,” the appellate court said.
“We join in the State’s position that the legislature surely intended that this type of conduct fall within the parameters of the definition of sexual conduct and, thus, be classified as rape,” the appellate court wrote. “Any other result would be absurd.”
Miranda Smith, 29, was charged in December 2019 with two counts of rape, a first-degree felony; two counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor, a second-degree felony; burglary, a second-degree felony; and theft, a first-degree misdemeanor.
Smith entered a plea of no contest to the burglary charge and to an amended count of rape March 12, 2020, according to court records. The other charges were dismissed. Another defendant charged in the same indictment, Wesley Moore of Hillsboro, also pleaded no contest to rape and burglary.
On March 19, 2020, Smith was sentenced to a definite determinate term of two years for burglary, consecutive to a sentence of 10 years to life for the rape charge. Smith was also ordered to register as a Tier III sex offender.
According to her indictment, the charges for which Smith was sentenced include an alleged burglary in which she “did by force, stealth or deception trespass … with purpose to commit in the habitation a criminal offense” (theft)” in a victim’s home on or about the period of Feb. 1, 2017 through Feb. 1, 2019. The rape charge involved a juvenile victim and allegedly occurred between June 1 and Sept. 1, 2019.
Smith, who was represented by Timothy Young, Patrick Clark and Max Hersch of the Ohio Public Defender’s office, argued only the rape conviction on appeal, saying that “the trial court violated her right to due process when it found her guilty of rape in the absence of sufficient evidence.”
Presiding Judge Jason P. Smith wrote that the appellate court found “no merit to her sole assignment of error” in the Court of Appeals decision, which was posted Dec. 15.
According to the court’s decision, Smith “contends that the facts that formed the basis of her plea did not sufficiently allege the subsection of rape under which she was charged.” The defendant’s argument had to do with the language of the O.R.C., which she argued “does not criminalize [her conduct],” according to the decision. It was argued that the allegations more closely met the definition of gross sexual imposition.
The State, represented by Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins, argued “that the conduct at issue constituted sexual conduct and that ‘it is unfathomable that it was not the purpose and intent of the legislature to proscribe acts such as those committed herein’” under the Ohio Revised Code.
The Court of Appeals wrote that neither the parties nor the appellate court were able “to locate another case in Ohio involving [the] particular type of conduct” at issue in this case. However, “Smith has admitted to the facts surrounding this incident and simply argues that these facts do not meet the statutory definition of rape,” the appellate court said.
“We join in the State’s position that the legislature surely intended that this type of conduct fall within the parameters of the definition of sexual conduct and, thus, be classified as rape,” the appellate court wrote. “Any other result would be absurd.”