State v. Bell

[Cite as State v. Bell, 2026-Ohio-4398.] IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STARK COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO Case No. 2026CA00004 Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry -vs- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2025CR1914 JOEL AARON BELL Judgment: Affirmed Defendant - Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: November 5, 2026 BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; Andrew J. King; Kevin W. Popham, Judges APPEARANCES: KYLE L. STONE, KAMEISHA J. JOHNSON, for Plaintiff-Appellee; GEORGE URBAN, for Defendant-Appellant. King, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Joel Aaron Bell, appeals his December 10, 2025 conviction in the Stark County Common Pleas Court. Plaintiff-Appellee is State of Ohio. We affirm the trial court. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶ 2} On September 22, 2025, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted Bell on one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05 and one count of importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07. Said charges arose from incidents between Bell and an eleven- year-old girl, M.D. {¶ 3} A jury trial commenced on November 12, 2025. The jury found Bell guilty of importuning, but was unable to reach a verdict on the gross sexual imposition charge so it was dismissed. By judgment entry filed December 10, 2025, the trial court sentenced Bell to thirty-six months in prison. {¶ 4} Bell filed an appeal with the following assignment of error: I {¶ 5} "BELL'S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS THE TESTIMONY FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME." I {¶ 6} In Bell's sole assignment of error, he claims his conviction for importuning was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. {¶ 7} On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered." State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983). See also State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). The granting of a new trial "should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction." Martin at 175. In Thompkins at 387, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990), the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the following: Weight of the evidence concerns "the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other. It indicates clearly to the jury that the party having the burden of proof  will be entitled to their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the greater amount of credible evidence sustains the issue which is to be established before them. Weight is not a question of mathematics, but depends on its effect in inducing belief." (Emphasis in original.) {¶ 8} We note the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182 (1990). The trier of fact "has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each witness, something that does not translate well on the written page." Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418 (1997). {¶ 9} Bell was convicted of importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07(A) which states: "(A) No person shall solicit a person who is less than thirteen years of age to engage in sexual activity with the offender, whether or not the offender knows the age of such person." "Solicit" "'means to seek, to ask, to influence, to invite, to tempt, to lead on, to bring pressure to bear.' State v. Skatzes, 104 Ohio St.3d 195, 819 N.E.2d 215, 2004 Ohio 6391, at P 68, citing 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (2001) 573, Section 523.03(6) (this same language was incorporated into the 2009 revision of the Ohio Jury Instructions, see CR 523.03(6))." State v. Jain, 2010-Ohio-1712, ¶ 12 (3d Dist.); accord State v. Penny, 2014-Ohio-2293, ¶ 33 (5th Dist.). "'Sexual activity' means sexual conduct or sexual contact, or both." R.C. 2907.01(C). "'Sexual contact' means any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person." R.C. 2907.01(B).  {¶ 10} The jury heard from several witnesses. A.P., M.D.'s mother, testified M.D. was currently thirteen years old, eleven years old at the time of the offense. T. at 157, 159- 160. A.P. and M.D.'s father, T.D., were divorced and shared custody of M.D. T. at 157-158. A.P. testified an unexpected package was delivered to her home and inside was inappropriate clothing. T. at 159-160, 162-164; State's Exhibits A-1 through A-4. A.P. asked M.D. about the package and she stated the clothing was a birthday gift sent to her from Bell. T. at 160. Bell is a childhood friend of T.D. T. at 159, 166. A.P. was unaware of M.D.'s contact with Bell. T. at 160. After hearing M.D.'s answer, A.P. checked M.D.'s phone and read what she felt were inappropriate comments and text messages. T. at 160-161, 165. A.P. contacted the police. T. at 168-169. {¶ 11} M.D. testified when she was eleven years old and staying with her father, Bell would sometimes watch her and her younger half-siblings. T. at 186-187, 190, 197. On one occasion, M.D. went downstairs to watch television. T. at 188. Bell watched television with her and then started tickling her "because he knows that I hate it"; that is when he poked her in the "boob," "he kind of held it there" and laughed. T. at 189, 198, 233. Bell poked her under her hoodie but over her t-shirt. T. at 190. M.D. felt very uncomfortable because she did not like anyone touching her. Id. Bell asked M.D. if "I shaved down there" meaning to her, her vagina, and if she had ever touched herself. T. at 190, 197, 198, 232-233. He told M.D. "if I let him touch me, then I could touch him." T. at 191, 198. M.D. interpreted that to mean "private parts." T. at 191. No touching occurred. Id. Bell wanted to send her a birthday gift, so M.D. sent him over twenty photographs of clothing for him to pick from. T. at 192. She did not mean to send him any pictures of inappropriate clothing. T. at 192-193. Bell texted her and asked if M.D. wanted to order anything else and she responded, "everything" to which Bell texted: "You don't want me to do that. You'll be modeling and owing me favors * * * unless that's what you want, then - - then okay. I'll do it. Expect a big box. Ha ha." T. at 194-195; State's Exhibit B-1. M.D. responded, "[n]o, that's okay, but what would you like me to do?" T. at 195. Bell responded, nothing, "[j]ust the pictures * * * [u]nless you gonna to do other favors, but don't see that happening, tickle fight." T. at 195-196; State's Exhibit B-2. She understood "he would get me more stuff if I did him favors." T. at 209. {¶ 12} Bell admitted to tickling M.D., but stated if he poked her boob while tickling her, it was "[n]ot intentionally." T. at 278. He stated he looked up the descriptions of the clothing items she sent, "put a couple of them in the cart, and sen[t] them off." T. at 280. He admitted he picked the clothing and was aware of what they looked like, and he would not have permitted his daughter at eleven years old to wear that clothing. T. at 285-287. He denied sending the text messages to M.D. or asking her any of the questions she testified to about shaving and touching. T. at 282-283, 288. {¶ 13} M.D. testified Bell poked her breast under her hoodie during a tickle fight, he laughed it off but she felt uncomfortable, and then he asked her questions about shaving and touching herself. He followed this with sending her inappropriate clothing for an eleven-year- old and the cited text messages. The jury chose to believe M.D. and decided that Bell did indeed "solicit" M.D. – he asked, he invited, he tempted, he led on - to engage in sexual activity. That was within the jury's province. {¶ 14} Upon review, we find this is not an exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction for importuning; we do not find that the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. {¶ 15} The sole assignment of error is denied.  {¶ 16} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court is AFFIRMED. {¶ 17} Costs to Appellant. By: King, J. Baldwin, P.J. and Popham, J. concur.