Greenfield man found guilty of compelling prostitution, other charges

A jury seated in Highland County Common Pleas Court returned a verdict finding a Greenfield man guilty of five charges, including two counts of compelling prostitution, Tuesday afternoon.

As previously reported, in December 2023, Ryan O. Coleman, 35, of Greenfield was indicted and charged with two counts of compelling prostitution, both third-degree felonies; disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, a fifth-degree felony; attempted corrupting another with drugs, a fifth-degree felony; and trafficking in marijuana, a fifth-degree felony.

Following a trial that started Monday morning and concluded with closing arguments and jury instructions Tuesday morning, the jury deliberated for approximately two and a half hours before finding Coleman guilty of all five counts as alleged in the indictment.

Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss ordered a pre-sentence investigation and revoked Coleman’s bond. Coleman’s attorney, Clyde Bennett, asked if Coleman could “wrap up his affairs first” before being remanded to custody.

“I don’t think there’s a risk of him not coming to court,” Bennett said.

“Given the nature of the offenses, it’s court’s standard policy,” Coss said. “Bond will be revoked.”

A sentencing hearing has been scheduled for July 18.

The jury was seated Monday morning at approximately 10:30 a.m., with Coss giving the jury their initial instructions.

In her opening statement, Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins told the jury that they would hear of Coleman committing “multiple crimes” involving sexual activity, marijuana and a juvenile last October.

It was reported by the Greenfield Police Department in October that Coleman reached out to a 17-year-old on social media, asking the juvenile to engage in sexual contact in exchange for marijuana.

The teenager reported the incident to a school resource officer, who contacted the Greenfield Police Department.

Detectives with the Greenfield Police Department and the Highland County Task Force began an investigation. It was arranged – with officers present – for the juvenile to respond back to Coleman via social media. Coleman agreed to meet the juvenile at Mitchell Park, at which time GPD made the arrest. A search warrant also was executed at Coleman's McClain Avenue home on Oct. 12.

Collins told the jury that during the course of the social media chat between Coleman and the juvenile, the juvenile got a second phone to document their conversation.

Collins alleged in her opening statement that Coleman committed compelling prostitution because he offered marijuana in exchange for sexual activity with the juvenile; disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, because he sent videos of a sexual nature, of himself, to the juvenile; corrupting another with drugs because he left his home, with marijuana, to meet the juvenile; and trafficking in marijuana because of the offer of drugs in exchange for something (in this case, sexual activity).

Defense attorney Clyde Bennett disagreed with Collins’ assessment, telling the jury that it was a case of an “adult man inappropriately communicating with” a juvenile. Multiple times, he said it was potentially “inappropriate” but “not illegal.”

“It’s inappropriate because of the age difference, but it’s not illegal to do what Mr. Coleman did,” Bennett said.

Bennett stated that it was the juvenile who “initiated the sexual talk;” that Coleman never “tried to engage” the juvenile “in sexual activity for hire;” that he “did not pay or agree to pay this juvenile] anything;” that Coleman sent videos that “may be rude or crass, but they are not obscene;” that Coleman intended to use the marijuana, not give it to the juvenile; and that the marijuana was not intended to be “a payment for anything.”

The juvenile in question was the first witness called Monday morning after the opening statements, and that testimony continued for most of the day, as the juvenile did not step down until nearly 2:45 p.m.

The direct examination of the juvenile by Collins involved going through 144 exhibits from the social media interactions between Coleman and the juvenile. Most of those exhibits were screenshots, although there were several videos published as well, and they contained a morning conversation and an evening conversation.

Among the close to 70 screenshots of their initial conversation — which occurred in the early morning hours after midnight — were various comments of a sexual nature. Coleman asked the juvenile about sexual preferences, saying he was “down for whatever” and asking the juvenile to “hit me up,” “pull up” or “bring it over,” as well as Coleman asking the juvenile to send photos of a sexual nature and sending photos of himself in the shower as well as videos of himself in bed. Interspersed with the sexual innuendo were various photos of marijuana.

Later in the conversation, one message that attorneys returned to repeatedly was one sent by Coleman that said “hi/[a reference to a sexual act]?”

Coleman also sent a message asking if the juvenile was “coming to smoke?” and one saying that he had “bud,” or marijuana.

The juvenile testified about notifying a school resource officer the following day. The Greenfield Police Department began an investigation, assisted by Highland County Task Force officers. With GPD officers as well as a parent of the juvenile present, the juvenile initiated a conversation again with Coleman that evening.

The juvenile indicated smoking and drinking in a car and asked Coleman about “what we were talking about last night.” Coleman sent his address and asked the juvenile “if you’re alone,” while also sending videos of his house to prove that he was home by himself. The juvenile asked if Coleman would give him drugs, while Coleman asked if the juvenile was really coming over.

Later, however, Coleman said, “if you want to smoke it’ll be ready,” and the juvenile asked him to “bring the bud.” The juvenile asked to meet at the park and told Coleman that it would be “just me waiting on you.”

After an hour break, cross examination started Monday just after 1 p.m. Like Collins, Bennett went through numerous screenshots of the social media conversation, asking the juvenile to explain certain phrases or messages.

Bennett asked if the juvenile believed Coleman “was saying he would pay you or hire you or sell you something in order for you to have sex with him.” The juvenile said yes.

Bennett asked the juvenile to go through the 144 exhibits and find any messages from Coleman to that effect. Several minutes passed as the juvenile sorted through the messages and selected various exhibits, concluding, “I believe that’s all.”

“So what I have in my hand is what you believe constitutes somebody trying to pay you or hire you for sex?” Bennett asked.

“Yes, sir,” the juvenile said.

“Let’s go over them one at a time,” Bennett said.

The messages the juvenile selected were of a sexual nature. However, Bennett repeatedly asked of each one, “Tell the jury where he says in there he wants to hire you for sex,” with the juvenile conceding that “it doesn’t.”

Under redirect examination, the juvenile again explained several of the messages and clarified a few earlier statements. Collins returned to the “hi/[reference to a sex act]?” text, which the juvenile testified they took to mean, “Basically saying, get you high for [the sex act]?”

The state’s remaining witnesses were all law enforcement officers, beginning with Highland County Task Force investigator Chris Bowen. Bowen said that he and Greenfield Police officers were on a call together the evening of Coleman’s arrest, as Bowen witnessed Coleman leaving his residence after being asked to meet the juvenile at the park. Bowen notified Sgt. Mark Hamilton of the Greenfield Police Department to make a stop on Coleman’s vehicle.

Bowen also positively identified items found on Coleman at the time of his arrest as being marijuana.

Hamilton testified about arresting Coleman. He said that when he pulled Coleman over, Coleman said he “had some marijuana blunts on him,” which “fell out of his underwear.” A bag was retrieved from the front seat of Coleman’s car, and the bag contained various hygiene items, including “a water-based lubricant.”  

Officer Kyle Flora testified about the investigation, as he was with the juvenile while the juvenile was messaging Coleman in the evening.

Flora said he also executed a search warrant of Coleman’s home and reviewed various exhibits depicting photos of the home, which included photos of marijuana, edibles and related paraphernalia.  

Under cross examination, Flora acknowledged that Coleman has a medical marijuana card and prescriptions for the marijuana found at his home.

The state rested at 3 p.m., with Coss rejecting a Rule 29 motion for acquittal made by Bennett.

Shortly thereafter, Coleman took the stand in his own defense. He said that he was an Army veteran who served two combat tours to Afghanistan, working in both Kuwait and Afghanistan before returning to Ohio and serving as a police officer for two Brown County departments. He is now an advanced EMT for an area medical transportation company, Coleman said.  

Coleman testified that he had met the juvenile two years prior “through a mutual friend” at Coleman’s house, at which point they became connected on social media, but they “never spoke” after that until the October incident.

Bennett asked if it was true that Coleman was trying to have sex with the juvenile.

“Yeah,” Coleman said, adding that he was “under the impression” that he and the juvenile were going to “hang out” and “maybe have sex.”

“Were you going to pay [the juvenile]?” Bennett asked.

“No, sir, never,” Coleman said.

Bennett asked Coleman to translate the “hi/[reference to a sex act]?” message. Coleman said that he “firmly believes I meant to” make references to two separate sex acts, and that “hi” did not mean “get you high for a” sex act.

“Every time we spoke, I never tried to encourage this individual to have intercourse with me for any type of payment,” Coleman said.

In response to multiple questions, Coleman answered “no, sir” regarding exchanging anything, or making any type of payment, for sex.

Coleman also addressed the videos of himself in bed and said that his underwear could be seen, but he was not naked or engaging in any sort of sexual activity in the videos.

Coleman said that when he was driving to the park to meet the juvenile, he had “planned on smoking and hanging out,” saying that he brought the marijuana for himself, not the juvenile. The bag that was taken from his car is a “personal hygiene bag that Coleman said he takes “everywhere he goes.”

Under cross examination, Collins again asked about the “hi/[reference to a sex act]?” message. Coleman said it wouldn’t “make sense” to write “hi” meaning “high” because the juvenile “doesn’t smoke marijuana.”

However, when asked about sending a message asking the juvenile about “coming to smoke,” Coleman said that he had done so because the juvenile had sent a picture with a cigarette (which in fact was not sent until the evening conversation). Coleman then said that the juvenile was “a marijuana smoker,” explaining that he knew “from school” and “from family members” that the juvenile smoked.

“[The juvenile] is 20 years younger than you, correct?” Collins asked, after Coleman said he knew “from school.”

“No,” Coleman said.

“Pretty close,” Collins said.

“I’m 35,” Coleman said.

Collins then tried to get Coleman to answer questions about messaging the juvenile to ask if “you coming to smoke,” with Coleman primarily answering that he did not recall.   

Under redirect examination, Coleman again reiterated that he would not offer to compensate the juvenile in any way.

“It’s not something that I would do,” Coleman said. “I’m not interested in paying for sex.”

The defense rested shortly before 4 p.m., with Bennett renewing the Rule 29 motion, which was again denied. Coss gave the jury their instructions and dismissed them at 4:40 p.m., asking them to return Tuesday morning.

Attorneys presented their closing arguments starting around 8:25 Tuesday morning. Bennett told the jury he would tell them “what I think the law is, and the judge is going to confirm it.” He reminded the jury that it is the state, not the defense, who has the burden of proof and that the defense “didn’t have to prove anything.

“If the state does not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt on each and every charge, he is not guilty of that offense,” Bennett said.

Bennett told the jury that “at least one element” to prove Coleman’s guilt “is going to be missing in respect to all of the charges” and that there was not circumstantial evidence to support the case either.  

Bennett acknowledged that Coleman was “trying to have sex with a juvenile” and that the state’s case proved “that this was perverted, this was disgusting, this was wrong.

“But that’s not what he’s charged with,” Bennett said. “He’s charged with other things.”

The defense attorney reminded the jury that they are “required to follow the law, not your sensibilities and provocations,” or being upset that an adult was “trying to have sex with a teenager.”

Bennett argued that the exhibits “do not show that” Coleman was trying to hire the juvenile for sex, that the “evidence … is not there.”

“There’s no words in there that he was trying to pay [the juvenile], that he was trying to hire [the juvenile], to have sex,” Bennett said.

He reviewed the language of compelling prostitution, which says in part that it involves sexual activity “for hire.” He argued that the “for hire” element is missing in Coleman’s case.

“Just because he knew or should have known [the juvenile is] less than 18, he’s still not guilty because it wasn’t for hire,” Bennett said.

The second count alleged that Coleman “did knowingly pay or agree to pay” a minor for sexual activity. Bennett reiterated that “there’s no evidence.”

For the disseminating matter harmful to juveniles charge, Bennett argued that in 2024, with the various types of content viewed by teens on social media, the videos sent by Coleman were “not obscene.”  

Bennett argued that Coleman was “going to smoke the marijuana himself, not furnish it to” the juvenile, so he was not guilty of attempting to corrupt another with drugs.

“What evidence do you have that those two joints were going to be smoked by anybody other than him?” Bennett asked.

Bennett further argued that law enforcement “jumped the gun” and that there was no attempt of trafficking marijuana because Coleman never made it to the park to meet the juvenile. He was “not given the opportunity” to offer marijuana, Bennett argued.

“Based on what happened, Mr. Coleman is not guilty, even though he is creepy and disgusting and arguably perverted,” Bennett said.

He told the jury to follow the law and said that if they did so, they would return not guilty verdicts on all five counts.

“You must do so in this case because the law requires you to,” Bennett said.

He also told the jury to think “What would Clyde say about that?” when listening to the state’s closing argument.

In her second closing argument, Collins referred to Bennett’s comments and told the jury that the state “welcomes” having the burden of proof.

“We have the evidence, we have the testimony and we have the law that all support and prove our burden of proof,” Collins said.

Collins said that circumstantial evidence did support the allegations — that the juvenile asked if Coleman was “going to get me high” if they meet up and that Coleman “put two marijuana blunts in his underwear and drove to meet” the juvenile. She told the jury they “can draw an inference from a fact” that the juvenile asked about marijuana and Coleman put them in his underwear.

Collins then spoke about the credibility of the witnesses, reminding them that the juvenile was put in a “very unsavory position of having to explain some things that were unquestionably embarrassing,” while the law enforcement officers had “no bias” and “nothing to gain or lose” from their testimony.

“The only person that testified from that chair that has a reason to lie to you is the defendant,” Collins said, and she argued that Coleman did lie, that he “changed his story on the stand.”

“The defense wants you to believe he’s an honest person because of his background,” the prosecutor said, but said that because of Coleman’s background, “He knew better than to do this.”

Regarding the photos of the conversation between Coleman and the juvenile, Collins told the jury to “put them in context.”

Collins said the message that said “hi” before a reference to sex fits into the context of the conversation, as it was followed by a message by Coleman asking the juvenile “are you coming to smoke?” Earlier in the conversation, there was an invitation from Coleman to the juvenile to “hit me up when you’re ready” with a photo for blunt.

Collins reminded the jury that in the conversation in the evening hours, the juvenile asked Coleman for marijuana cartridges, which was followed by Coleman saying he had “wasted two hours” talking to the juvenile and asking the juvenile for a photo. Coleman then asked if the juvenile was “coming here or not, I’m trying to smoke,” and sent a video of his house and kitchen with marijuana and various paraphernalia visible. In response, the juvenile asked if that would be “my reward,” and later, Coleman left the house with blunts in his underwear.

“Take the messages in order, read them in context,” Collins told the jury. “If you cherry pick them, they’re going to say what the defense wants, but if you read them in context, they say one thing: marijuana for sex.”

The prosecutor then got out a chart where she went through all of the elements of each charge as alleged, arguing that the state had proven each element. The first count of compelling prostitution alleged that Coleman did “knowingly induce, procure, encourage, solicit, request or otherwise facilitate” a minor to engage in sex for hire.

“My lands, how many times did he ask [the juvenile]?” Collins said. “That’s encouragement, that’s enticement, that’s luring. He begged [the juvenile] to come over.”

Collins also said that “for hire,” or “for pay or compensation,” can mean “a number of things,” not just money. An offer to get the juvenile high could be compensation, she argued.

Similarly, the second count alleged Coleman “did knowingly pay or agree to pay” the minor. Collins said there is “no requirement” in the law that the payment had to be money.

Collins disagreed that the videos sent by Coleman, depicting him in bed in his underwear, were not obscene. She told the jury that you “apply community standards” to making the determination and asked the jury if they, or others in this community, would likely be offended by viewing such material.

For the attempted corrupting another with drugs charge, Coleman was accused of “purposely or knowingly … engaging in conduct that, if successful, would constitute or result in” violating the law for corrupting another with drugs.

“His plan was to furnish two marijuana blunts to a juvenile,” Collins said. “The only reason he did not is because law enforcement did not let him.”

Finally, for trafficking in marijuana, it is alleged that Coleman “did knowingly sell or offer to sell marijuana.” Collins explained that the law provides that a sale can include a “delivery, barter, exchange, transfer, gift or an offer,” and that Coleman asking the juvenile to “hit me up when you’re ready” with a picture of marijuana, then driving to meet the juvenile with marijuana, is “an offer.”

Collins concluded that “The motive for this crime is clear, and it’s lust.

“In this case, he was lustful for a 17-year-old child,” the prosecutor said.

Collins said that it was apparent that Coleman had been “keeping up with this child” — that despite meeting the juvenile once two years prior, Coleman testified about his purported knowledge of the child “from school” and their “mutual friends.

“He’s doing this despite being almost 20 years older than [the juvenile],” Collins said. “His motive in this case? It’s clear. His motive is to engage in sexual activity with [the juvenile], and the cost is marijuana. That’s what he’s going to give [the juvenile].”

Collins also pointed out that it is “important to look at” the screenshots of the conversation between Coleman and the juvenile in the evening, where “at no point” does Coleman “deny” their morning conversation about marijuana and sex. Coleman did, however, change his privacy settings on his messaging account, she said, and “those are the actions of a guilty man.

“This case is not difficult to understand,” Collins argued. “The evidence is overwhelming, and when you read the law, and you follow the instructions, and you read the [messages] in order, in context, this man’s actions are a crime. They’re not just disgusting. They’re not just wrong. They’re a crime.

“Predators prey on the most vulnerable in our society — on our children — and this must stop. Today, it stops with this defendant by you going into that jury room, reviewing the evidence, remembering the testimony and finding this man guilty of all counts.”

Publisher's note: A free press is critical to having well-informed voters and citizens. While some news organizations opt for paid websites or costly paywalls, The Highland County Press has maintained a free newspaper and website for the last 25 years for our community. If you would like to contribute to this service, it would be greatly appreciated. Donations may be made to: The Highland County Press, P.O. Box 849, Hillsboro, Ohio 45133. Please include "for website" on the memo line.