## Facts

- William C. Stoughton was a youth baseball coach.
- The State of Ohio charged Stoughton with two counts of gross sexual imposition under Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.05 based on conduct involving a young boy on Stoughton’s team (the boy was under thirteen; the record described him as seven years old at the time of the charged events).
- The boy testified that Stoughton took him to a health club. While the boy was showering, Stoughton entered the shower stall, rubbed the boy’s back and buttocks, and then rubbed the boy’s testicles for a few seconds.
- The boy testified that several weeks earlier, while the boy was watching television in Stoughton’s bedroom, Stoughton tickled the boy’s stomach and grabbed the boy’s testicles.
- The prosecution called another team member, David Gibel, who testified that Stoughton removed Gibel’s shorts and underwear, tickled him, and grabbed his testicles.
- The prosecution offered Gibel’s testimony to show that the charged touching was not accidental or mistaken “horseplay,” but was done for sexual arousal or gratification.
- Police executed a search warrant at Stoughton’s home and seized a book titled “Show Me,” described at trial as containing nude pictures of children with descriptive comments about their anatomy; the book was admitted into evidence.
- Stoughton waived a jury and was tried to the court. The trial court found him guilty on both counts. He appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Stoughton’s touching was “sexual contact”—touching of an erogenous zone done for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification—rather than nonsexual horseplay.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting testimony from David Gibel about similar, uncharged conduct as other-acts evidence to prove intent/purpose and lack of accident or mistake.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, affirmed the convictions.
- The court held that the trier of fact could find the required sexual-purpose element from the surrounding circumstances, including repeated genital touching in private settings.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting Gibel’s testimony as evidence of intent/purpose and absence of mistake or accident.
- The court rejected the challenge to the weight of the evidence, deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations in the bench trial.

## Legal Principles

- “Sexual contact” under Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.01(B) requires touching of an erogenous zone “for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person.”
- Purpose of sexual arousal or gratification is rarely proved by direct evidence and may be found from circumstantial evidence, including the nature of the touching and the surrounding context.
- A conviction will not be reversed as against the manifest weight of the evidence where the record contains competent, credible evidence on each element and the reviewing court defers to the factfinder on credibility.
- Other-acts evidence is not admissible to prove character or propensity, but it may be admitted for permitted purposes such as intent, plan, or absence of mistake or accident (subject to the trial court’s discretion and limits on unfair prejudice).
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings generally asks whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld Stoughton’s two gross sexual imposition convictions, concluding that the trial court could infer sexual purpose from the repeated, deliberate touching of the child’s genitals and the circumstances in which it occurred, and that similar-acts testimony from another boy was properly admitted to show intent and to rebut any claim of accident or innocent horseplay.


State v. Stoughton, 1989 WL 43608 (1989)