Ohio Supreme Court: Charges with sex crimes involving 4 children over many years could be heard at 1 trial

A Fairfield County trial court’s decision to conduct one trial for a man accused of committing sex crimes against four young girls over different periods of time was appropriate because the testimony would be simple and direct, and not confuse the jury, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction of Jeremy Reed. He pleaded no contest to sex crimes after a judge refused to grant him four separate trials, one for each alleged victim. Reed was sentenced to 28 to 33 years in prison in 2023.

The Court’s decision reversed the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which had vacated Reed’s sentence and ruled he was entitled to separate trials. In a split decision, the appeals court found Reed would not receive a fair trial if a single jury heard the charges regarding all four girls because the jury would improperly consider the testimony of each girl as corroborating the testimony of the others.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice R. Patrick DeWine explained that juries can consider multiple crimes against multiple victims in a single trial if the evidence of each alleged victim is “simple and direct.” If the testimony is uncomplicated and unlikely to confuse the jury, a single trial is permissible, he stated. In his appeal, Reed did not meet his burden to prove that permitting each victim to testify would lead to jury confusion such that he would suffer prejudice from the single trial, the Court ruled.

“Reed did not make any argument before the trial court that the evidence was not simple and direct, or that the jury would not be able to segregate the evidence involving each victim,” Justice DeWine wrote.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Jennifer Brunner wrote the appeals court correctly ordered separate trials and questioned how a single trial could be fair. She noted the Fifth District found that the danger of the jury improperly considering the testimony of each victim as bolstering the testimony of the others was significant.