State v. Stoughton
Ohio Court of Appeals
1989 WL 43608 (1989)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
William Stoughton (defendant) was a youth baseball coach. The State of Ohio (plaintiff) charged Stoughton with two counts of gross sexual imposition for his conduct with a seven-year-old player on his team (the boy). At trial, the boy testified that Stoughton took him to a health club and that while the boy was showering, Stoughton entered the stall and rubbed the boy’s back and buttocks before rubbing the boy’s testicles for a few seconds. The boy further testified that several weeks earlier, he was watching television in Stoughton’s bedroom when Stoughton tickled his stomach and grabbed his testicles. David Gibel, another player on the same baseball team, also testified that Stoughton took off Gibel’s shorts and underwear before tickling him and grabbing his testicles. The prosecution presented Gibel’s testimony as evidence that Stoughton did not touch the boy’s testicles mistakenly or accidentally and that Stoughton touched the boy with the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal. The court, which tried Stoughton without a jury, convicted Stoughton on both counts. Stoughton appealed, arguing that (1) the prosecution failed to prove that he touched the boy with the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal rather than with the intent of engaging in horseplay and (2) the trial court erred in admitting Gibel’s testimony regarding conduct for which Stoughton was not charged.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nahra, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.