## Facts

- Bradford Wilson lived with his stepdaughter, V.B. (a minor), along with V.B.’s mother and younger siblings; V.B.’s mother worked out of state during the week, leaving Wilson at home with the children.
- During the period when V.B.’s mother was away, Wilson left a vibrator on V.B.’s bed and, on another occasion, left a VHS tape containing a pornographic movie on V.B.’s bed.
- V.B. grew suspicious that Wilson might be watching her and told her friend, Kristi Levanduski.
- After school one day, V.B. and Levanduski searched V.B.’s room and found a camera hidden in an air vent.
- V.B. investigated the basement area that shared a wall with her shower and found a small hole drilled into the wall that allowed a full-body view of someone using V.B.’s shower.
- V.B. and Levanduski photographed the camera and the hole and contacted police.
- Police obtained a search warrant and searched the home. Wilson was present and showed officers the camera, which he had already uninstalled and dismantled.
- Officers also found the hole leading to V.B.’s shower covered with fresh caulk.
- Wilson denied drilling the hole to spy on V.B. and claimed the camera was installed because he was concerned about V.B.’s behavior and grades. He also claimed the vibrator and pornographic tape were mistakenly left for V.B.’s mother.
- The State charged Wilson with voyeurism based on watching V.B. in the shower and attempted voyeurism based on installing the hidden camera. After a bench trial, the court found Wilson guilty on both counts and imposed an aggregate 120-day jail term.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient, and not against the manifest weight of the evidence, to prove that Wilson committed voyeurism and attempted voyeurism for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence that Wilson left V.B. a vibrator and pornographic tape and engaged in other sexualized conduct, under Evid.R. 404(B) and R.C. 2945.59.

## Decision

- The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held that the evidence, including V.B.’s testimony and the physical evidence of a viewing hole and a concealed camera, permitted the trial court to find the elements of voyeurism and attempted voyeurism proven beyond a reasonable doubt, including sexual-purpose intent.
- The court held the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations in the bench trial.
- The court held the challenged “other acts” evidence was admissible for permissible purposes such as intent and motive, and in any event the bench-trial judge was presumed to consider evidence only for proper purposes absent an affirmative showing otherwise.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is sufficient if, viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could find each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Manifest-weight review considers the entire record and will reverse only when the factfinder clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice.
- Voyeurism and attempted voyeurism may be proved through circumstantial evidence, including evidence of concealment and access creating an opportunity to view someone in a private setting.
- The “purpose of sexual arousal or gratification” element may be inferred from surrounding conduct, including sexualized behavior directed at the victim and efforts to observe the victim in private.
- Under Evid.R. 404(B) and R.C. 2945.59, evidence of other acts is inadmissible to show character or propensity but may be admitted for non-propensity purposes such as motive, intent, or absence of mistake.
- In a bench trial, the judge is presumed to consider only competent, admissible evidence for lawful purposes unless the record affirmatively shows otherwise.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh District affirmed Wilson’s voyeurism and attempted-voyeurism convictions because the concealed camera, the drilled hole into the shower wall, efforts to remove or conceal evidence, and surrounding sexualized conduct allowed the trial court to infer secret observation and sexual-purpose intent; the court also found no reversible error in admitting other-acts evidence, particularly given the bench-trial setting and the presumption that the judge used the evidence only for proper purposes.


State v. Wilson, 192 Ohio App. 3d 189, 948 N.E.2d 515 (2011)