State v. Neff

[Cite as State v. Neff, 2026-Ohio-3719.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT NOBLE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHAN P. NEFF, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 26 NO 0536 Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Noble County, Ohio Case No. 225-2089 BEFORE: Mark A. Hanni, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges. JUDGMENT: Affirmed. Atty. Jordan C. Croucher, Noble County Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee and Atty. Edward F. Borkowski, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant. Dated: September 22, 2026  –2– HANNI, J. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Jonathan P. Neff, appeals from a Noble County Common Pleas Court judgment convicting him of nine counts of rape of his step-daughter, following a jury trial. Appellant argues on appeal that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because Appellant’s convictions are supported by both the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. {¶2} Mother has one daughter, I.T. Mother was married to Appellant for several years and Appellant lived with mother and I.T. {¶3} On the morning of July 11, 2024, mother left for work. Appellant was to drop I.T., who was ten years old at the time, off at his mother’s house for the day. Later that day, when mother picked I.T. up from Appellant’s mother’s house, mother noticed that I.T. seemed withdrawn and was not acting like her usual, talkative self. Upon questioning by mother, I.T. began crying and shaking. She told mother that that morning, Appellant had forced her to put his “privates” in her mouth. Mother immediately called Appellant’s family members and told them to come get Appellant out of her house. Next, mother took I.T. to the sheriff’s department and reported what I.T. had just disclosed. A forensic interviewer was called in to interview I.T. I.T. was cooperative and talkative with the interviewer when discussing her day. But as soon as the interviewer asked I.T. why she was there, I.T. shut down and would not discuss what had happened. {¶4} Appellant never returned to Mother’s house and their divorce was final in October 2024. In the meantime, no progress was made on the case. In 2025, Mother contacted the sheriff’s department to inquire why the investigation had stalled. {¶5} On May 15, 2025, I.T. had a second forensic interview. Once again, I.T. appeared comfortable and talkative when discussing school, her pets, and her daily routine. Once the interviewer turned to the subject of why she was there, I.T. became quiet and withdrawn. This time, however, she was more open with the interviewer. I.T. disclosed that Appellant had made her put his “private” in her mouth on multiple occasions. She said that it happened more than three times, more than five times, and about ten times. I.T. stated that Appellant would do this in the kitchen and in the Case No. 26 NO 0536  –3– bathroom. She told the interviewer that sometimes something white, “like water” would come out of Appellant’s private and she would spit it in the trash. I.T. also described an instance where Appellant made her take her clothes off and lay on her mother’s bed while Appellant put his “private” on her “private.” {¶6} On July 29, 2025, a Noble County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on nine counts of rape of a child under age 13, first-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2907.02(B). Appellant entered a not guilty plea to the charges. {¶7} The matter proceeded to a jury trial on January 21, 2026. The jury heard testimony from I.T., Appellant, and several other witnesses. It found Appellant guilty on all counts. {¶8} The court held a sentencing hearing on February 5, 2026. It sentenced Appellant to the statutorily-mandated sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after ten years on each of the nine counts. It ordered Appellant to serve the sentences on Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 consecutively to each other but concurrently with the sentences on Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Thus, Appellant’s total sentence is life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years. The court also classified Appellant as a Tier III sex offender. {¶9} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 10, 2026. He now raises two assignments of error for our review. {¶10} Appellant’s first assignment of error states: APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS WERE UNSUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. {¶11} Appellant argues the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Appellant was convicted on nine counts of rape. He points out the only count that I.T. testified to in detail was the last instance that occurred on July 11, 2024, where I.T. testified that Appellant put his penis in her mouth when they were in the kitchen. Appellant concedes the evidence was likely sufficient on this one count. But he claims that as to the other eight counts there was no evidence of what he allegedly did or where he did it. {¶12} Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict. State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 113 (1997). Case No. 26 NO 0536  –4– Sufficiency is a test of adequacy. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law. Id. In reviewing the record for sufficiency, the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d at 113. {¶13} A sufficiency of the evidence challenge tests the burden of production while a manifest weight challenge tests the burden of persuasion. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 390 (Cook, J., concurring). Therefore, when reviewing a sufficiency challenge, the court does not evaluate witness credibility. State v. Yarbrough, 2002-Ohio-2126, ¶ 79. Instead, the court looks at whether the evidence is sufficient if believed. Id. at ¶ 82. {¶14} The jury convicted Appellant of nine counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), which provides: “No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender . . . when . . . [t]he other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.” {¶15} Mother was the first witness to testify. She stated that while she was married to Appellant she worked weekdays, during the day. (Tr. 154). Appellant worked swing shifts. (Tr. 155). On days when Appellant was available, he helped to care for I.T. (Tr. 155). {¶16} Mother testified that on July 11, 2024, she left for work in the morning. (Tr. 158-159). Appellant volunteered to take I.T. to his mother’s house, where I.T. was going to spend the day. (Tr. 158-159). When mother picked I.T. up from Appellant’s mother’s house later that day, she noticed that I.T.’s demeanor was “off.” (Tr. 159). Normally, mother testified, I.T. is hyper and talkative. (Tr. 159-160). But that day I.T. did not want to tell mother about her day and just wanted to go home. (Tr. 160). Mother pried for a bit. (Tr. 160). I.T. then “broke down” and started shaking and crying. (Tr. 161). I.T. told mother she did not want to tell her what happened because she was afraid mother would get hurt. (Tr. 161). I.T. told mother that Appellant made her “stick his private parts in her mouth.” (Tr. 164). {¶17} Mother immediately called Appellant’s family members to get Appellant out of her house. (Tr. 162). Next, she called the sheriff’s department. (Tr. 162). Mother and Case No. 26 NO 0536  –5– I.T. went to the sheriff’s department where Ginger Davey, a caseworker with the department of job and family services, conducted a forensic interview with I.T. (Tr. 164). {¶18} Mother testified that she has a camera for security in her living room but she does not have a subscription for saving the video. (Tr. 167-168). Still, she had access to an older video from March 5, 2024. (State Ex. A; Tr. 170). The video showed I.T. walking from the kitchen area toward the bathroom carrying Appellant’s tee shirt and sweatpants. (State Ex. A; Tr. 173). {¶19} Mother testified that she began taking I.T. to counseling in 2024. (Tr. 191). I.T. was diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. (Tr. 192). {¶20} On cross-examination, mother admitted she had been angry with Appellant for cheating on her with his ex-wife, which she learned of in February 2024. (Tr. 177, 188). As a result of this, she and Appellant worked on their marriage through counseling. (Tr. 188). She filed for divorce in October 2024. (Tr. 186). Mother learned that Appellant was engaged in February 2025. (Tr. 186). She contacted law enforcement in April 2025, to inquire about the investigation in this case as no progress had been made. (Tr. 186). {¶21} I.T. testified next. She was 11 years old at the time of trial. (Tr. 201). She testified that the reason she was testifying is because something happened between Appellant and her at her house. (Tr. 205). She stated that Appellant had been her step- dad. (Tr. 205). The prosecutor asked I.T. what happened between her and Appellant. (Tr. 206). I.T. responded that, “[h]e put his privates in my mouth.” (Tr. 206). When asked what she meant by “privates”, I.T. explained it was “[h]is bottom, between his legs.” (Tr. 206). When asked what Appellant’s private part looked like, I.T. described it as looking “[l]ike a finger” and “skin color.” (Tr. 207). {¶22} The prosecutor continued: Q And when this happened, where were you? A In the house or the kitchen. Q In the kitchen? A Yeah. Q Did it just happen one time? Case No. 26 NO 0536  –6– A More than once. Q Did you say more than once? A Yeah. Q More than three times? A Yeah. Q More than five times? A Yeah. Q More than ten times? A About ten times. Q Did it always happen in the kitchen? A No. Q Where else did it happen? A The bathroom. Q Any other places? A No. Q Was this all on the same day? A No. Q Different days? A Yes. Q Do you remember the last time it happened? A No, I don’t remember the date, but I remember it happening. Q Do you remember about when it would have happened? Let me ask you this. Were you in school when it happened? A No, it was done in the summer. Case No. 26 NO 0536  –7– Q Would it have been last summer or the summer before that or when? A Not last summer but the summer before. (Tr. 207-209). She later explained that all of the times happened in the summer when she was ten years old. (Tr. 211, 214). {¶23} I.T. went on to explain that after it happened the last time she told her mom when she picked I.T. up from Appellant’s mother’s house. (Tr. 209). I.T. testified that it happened that time in the kitchen by the sink. (Tr. 209). And she stated that when it happened in the bathroom, she was by the bathroom sink. (Tr. 211). {¶24} In explaining the last time Appellant raped her, I.T. stated that Appellant “took his pants down and told me to sit on the chair.” (Tr. 211). Appellant then “put it in [her] mouth.” (Tr. 211). Again, I.T. stated that “it” looked “[l]ike a finger” and it was “pointing out.” (Tr. 211-212). I.T. described that Appellant would hold his privates when he put it in her mouth and a white goo came out into her mouth. (Tr. 212). She said whenever she was in the kitchen, she spit the goo into the trash can. (Tr. 212-213). She also stated that when she was in bathroom, she did the same. (Tr. 213). {¶25} I.T. testified that Appellant told her not to tell her mother because her mother would get mad at her. (Tr. 213). {¶26} In addition, I.T. testified that on one occasion, Appellant put his private on her private but it did not go in. (Tr. 214). Appellant then had her “dry” him with a towel. (Tr. 214-215). She stated that she was counting this as one of the ten times. (Tr. 214). {¶27} Davey was the State’s next witness. Davey is a forensic interviewer and caseworker for the department of job and family services. She was called by law enforcement on July 11, 2024, to conduct a forensic interview of I.T. (Tr. 235). The State then played the video of the July 11, 2024 interview (first interview). (State Ex. B2; Tr. 239-241).1 {¶28} During the beginning of the interview, I.T. was very talkative while she was discussing what she did that day. (State Ex. B2). But her demeanor instantly changed when Davey tried to delve into the purpose of the interview. When asked if she knew why 1 The transcript refers to the video of the first interview as State Exhibit B1. It is actually State Exhibit B2. State Exhibit B1 is the second interview that took place May 15, 2025. Case No. 26 NO 0536  –8– she was being interviewed, I.T. told Davey it was because something that she did not like happened at home. (State Ex. B2). I.T. also told Davey that she did not want to talk about it. (State Ex. B2; 49:19). {¶29} After the video of the first interview was played for the jury, the State continued questioning Davey. When asked about her observations, Davey pointed out that I.T. was initially very open and engaging while she was talking about things that she was comfortable talking about. (Tr. 245). But when Davey tried to get to the point of why she was there, I.T.’s disposition “changed entirely.” (Tr. 245). Davey noted that I.T. became “withdrawn, putting her head down, lack of eye contact, getting upset at times, not actually crying, but you could just hear it in her breath, her voice lower, her vocabulary, where she was very open, became very closed.” (Tr. 245-246). {¶30} Davey testified that she conducted a second forensic interview of I.T. on May 15, 2025 (second interview). (Tr. 256). The State played the video of the second interview for the jury. (State Ex. B1; Tr. 252). {¶31} For approximately the first 15 minutes of the interview, I.T. is bubbly and talkative while she spoke about school, her daily routine, and her pets. (State Ex. B1). But as soon as Davey asked I.T. about why she is there, I.T. began crying and said about “what happened.” (State Ex. B1; 16:43). I.T. stated that something happened with Appellant. (State Ex. B1; 24:16). At first, I.T. wrote down what happened with Appellant. (State Ex. B1; 27:36). I.T. wrote, “he put his private in my mouth.” (State Ex. B1; 27:37). Davey asked I.T. where on his body was Appellant’s “private” and I.T. indicated between her legs. (State Ex. B1; 27:46). Davey asked I.T. if she saw Appellant’s private and I.T. nodded “yes.” (State Ex. B1; 27:49). Davey asked what it looked like and I.T. showed Davey her finger. (State Ex. B1; 28:45). I.T. stated that she saw Appellant’s private because he had on a shirt but no pants. (State Ex. B1; 29:12). She told Davey that this happened in her kitchen. (State Ex. B1; 29:29). {¶32} Davey asked I.T. if this happened one time or more than one time. (State Ex. B1: 29:44). I.T. responded “more than once.” (State Ex. B1; 29:45). Davey asked I.T. if it was more than three times and I.T. responded “yeah.” (State Ex. B1: 29:56). Davey then asked if it was more than five times and I.T. said “yeah.” (State Ex. B1; 29:59). Davey asked if was more than ten times and I.T. responded “maybe.” (State Ex. Case No. 26 NO 0536  –9– B1; 30:03). Next, Davey asked if it always happened in the kitchen to which I.T. responded “no” and then stated it also happened in the bathroom. (State Ex. B1; 30:16). I.T. also told Davey that it happened on different days. (State Ex. B1; 30:32). I.T. told Davey that the last time it happened was “last summer.” (State Ex. B1; 30:46). I.T. then described that she was home alone with Appellant. (State Ex. B1; 31:19). I.T. told Davey that it happened in the kitchen by the sink. (State Ex. B1; 31:56). {¶33} I.T. next told Davey that Appellant made her “dry him” with a towel. (State Ex. B1; 33:36). When she did this, I.T. stated she saw Appellant’s whole body with no clothes on. (State Ex. B1; 39:58). On this occasion, I.T. said Appellant did not make her put his private in her mouth. (State Ex. B1; 35:29). Davey then asked I.T. if Appellant ever put his private anywhere other than her mouth and I.T. nodded “yes.” (State Ex. B1; 35:46). I.T. said that Appellant’s private went on her private. (State Ex. B1; 35:49). I.T. said this only happened once. (State Ex. B1; 36:33). I.T. said this happened in her mother’s room on her bed. (State Ex. B1; 36:48; 37:20). Appellant told her to take her clothes off. (State Ex. B1; 40:11). I.T. demonstrated for Davey how Appellant had her lay on the bed. (State Ex. B1; 42:03). She told Davey Appellant’s private did not go inside of her body. (State Ex. B1; 42:45). I.T. said Appellant moved his private up and down on top of her private. (State Ex. B1; 42:53). Appellant told I.T. that her mom would be mad if I.T. told her about this and I.T. would not be able to go on any trips. (State Ex. B1; 44:00). {¶34} Davey asked I.T. if anything ever came out of Appellant’s private when he put it in her mouth and I.T. nodded “yes.” (State Ex. B1; 44:35). I.T. told Davey “it was disgusting”, “off white”, and “like water.” (State Ex. B1; 44:41). I.T. stated that she spit it out into the trash can. (State Ex. B1; 45:03). I.T. indicated the “white stuff” did not come out every time. (State Ex. B1; 45:17). I.T. also stated that when this happened in the bathroom, she spit it in the sink. (State Ex. B1; 47:06). {¶35} Davey then testified that based on things like spontaneous responses and body language, I.T. did not appear to have been coached. (Tr. 255). She also testified that she purposely misstated how many incidents happened in the bedroom to see if I.T. would correct her, which she did, indicating truthfulness. (Tr. 255). Case No. 26 NO 0536  – 10 – {¶36} The State’s final witness was Noble County Sheriff’s Captain Kelly McGilton. Cpt. McGilton became involved in this case in 2025, around the time mother had called to check on the case’s progress. (Tr. 288-289). She testified that this case had been left open since July 2024 because while they thought something had happened, they were initially unable to substantiate charges being filed. (Tr. 289). Cpt. McGilton learned that I.T. had since disclosed more details so she requested that Davey conduct the second forensic interview. (Tr. 289-290). The captain reviewed the second interview and determined that an interview with Appellant was needed. (Tr. 291). Cpt. McGilton went to Appellant’s residence to speak with him. (Tr. 292). She recorded the entire interview. (Tr. 292). The interview was played for the jury. (Tr. 296; State Ex. C). {¶37} The interview took place on July 24, 2025, when Cpt. McGilton went to Appellant’s house. During the first several minutes, the captain introduced herself and asked Appellant if he would be amenable to counseling to help “close out” this matter. (State Ex. C; generally). Appellant initially denied “doing anything” with I.T. (State Ex. C; 7:07). But he stated he would go to counseling if the captain wanted him to do that. (State Ex. C; 7:16). Appellant offered to sign up for counseling and email Cpt. McGilton the receipts, logs, and “whatever you need.” (State Ex. C; 8:10). She then asked him “no vaginal sex, correct?” and Appellant answered “correct.” (State Ex. C; 8:24). She later asked Appellant if he could, would he apologize to I.T. (State Ex. C; 12:20). Appellant said “yes” that he would apologize for the way he acted with her, how he lost his temper, and how he was not the best step-dad. (State Ex. C; 12:21). {¶38} When asked if some sexual things happened with I.T., Appellant stated that his “behavior could have been better.” (State Ex. C; 13:48). When pressed, Appellant admitted he meant “not just anger.” (State Ex. C; 14:03). The captain then asked, “that includes sexual is that correct?” to which Appellant responded, “that’s the one thing I can’t say.” (State Ex. C; 14:21). She asked again if anything sexual happened with I.T. and Appellant said that he was not going to comment on that. (State Ex. C; 15:30). Appellant told the captain he had two children and he was not going to say anything that would jeopardize his future with them. (State Ex. C; 15:48). Appellant later stated that he was “in a very dark place” at that time. (State Ex. C; 18:10). He stated, “I should have done better. I should have been a better step-father.” (State Ex. C; 19:20). Case No. 26 NO 0536  – 11 – {¶39} Cpt. McGilton then told Appellant she knew there was some sexual contact with I.T. (State Ex. C; 20:52). She asked him to confirm that there was no vaginal penetration, which he confirmed. (State Ex. C; 21:05). She then asked how many times total did he have sexual contact with I.T. and asked if it was less than ten or more than ten. (State Ex. C; 21:12). Appellant responded, “I honestly can’t remember.” (State Ex. C; 21:48). She asked again, “you can’t remember?” and Appellant responded, “I’ve done a lot to forget my past, to bury that.” (State Ex. C; 21:50). And a bit later Cpt. McGilton asked “would you say the sexual contact was more than five but less than ten?” (State Ex. C; 24:31). Appellant responded, “I one hundred percent I [sic] do not remember.” (State Ex. C; 24:49). {¶40} The captain asked once again if Appellant ever had vaginal intercourse with I.T. and he responded in the negative. (State Ex. C; 26:26). She then asked, “any other inappropriate contact . . . would you say it was less than ten times?” (State Ex. C; 26:34). Appellant responded, “I think.” (State Ex. C; 26:47). She asked, “is it possible it was a little bit more than ten times?” (State Ex. C; 26:49). Appellant answered, “I don’t think so.” (State Ex. C; 27:00). Next she asked “kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, correct?” and Appellant responded, “I was a shitty human being in the whole house.” (State Ex. C; 27:09, 27:15). {¶41} Appellant cites to several cases from the Eighth District, which he claims support his position. {¶42} In State v. Hemphill, 2005-Ohio-3726 (8th Dist.), the defendant was convicted on 58 counts including numerous counts each of rape of a child under 13, gross sexual imposition (GSI), and kidnapping with sexual motivation specifications spanning two years. On appeal, the defendant argued he was convicted of a generic pattern of abuse and there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. Relying on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2005), the Eighth District found there was no evidence offered as to actual numbers or specific incidents. Id. at ¶ 82. It noted the victim testified that he touched her inappropriately on any opportunity that he could do so, and the state offered a numerical estimate. Id. {¶43} And in State v. Hlavsa, 2011-Ohio-3379 (8th Dist.), the defendant was convicted of 63 counts of rape, GSI, and kidnapping involving his minor niece. On appeal, Case No. 26 NO 0536  – 12 – he argued the indictment violated his constitutional right to due process because it contained numerous undifferentiated counts of rape and GSI. Once again, the Eighth District cited to Valentine, 395 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2005), in reversing two rape convictions and most of the GSI convictions. In that case the child-victim testified that vaginal intercourse occurred “‘[m]aybe about 40 [times],’ and that digital penetration occurred ‘thirty times.’ She estimated that Hlavsa performed oral sex on her ‘maybe seven or eight times’ and that he touched her in the hot tub ‘[m]aybe like 30 times.’” Id. at ¶ 9. The court found that the estimates did not provide sufficient specificity to identify the acts that would support the remaining counts. Id. at ¶ 21. {¶44} Finally, in State v. Thomas, 2011-Ohio-705 (8th Dist.), the defendant relied on Valentine in support of his assertion that the carbon copy indictment failed to provide him with adequate notice because it did not connect each sexual battery count to a distinct incident. The Eighth District found there was sufficient evidence to differentiate four out of ten counts of GSI. {¶45} In Valentine, the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of habeas corpus relief to the defendant on all but one of his 40 convictions, holding that multiple, undifferentiated rape charges in the indictment violated the defendant’s constitutional rights to due process and against double jeopardy. In that case, the victim “described typical abuse scenarios and estimated the number of times the rapes occurred, e.g., ‘about 20,’ ‘about 15’ or ‘about 10’ times.” Id. at 628. {¶46} This Court has directly determined not to follow Valentine. We discussed the reasons for this in detail in State v. Palmer, 2021-Ohio-4639, ¶ 24-27 (7th Dist.): As appellant acknowledges, we are not bound by Valentine and do not follow Valentine. State v. Miller, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 120, 2018-Ohio-3430; State v. Adams, 7th. Dist. Mahoning, No. 13 MA 130, 2014-Ohio-5854, 26 N.E.3d 1283; State v. Moats, 7th Dist. Monroe, No. 14 MO 0006, 2016-Ohio-7019; State v. Billman, 7th Dist. Monroe, Nos. 12 MO 3, 12 MO 5, 2013-Ohio-5774; State v. Clemons, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 10 BE 7, 2011-Ohio-1177. 2020-Ohio-633, ¶ 11-16. One of our most recent decisions declining to follow Valentine is State v. Thomas, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 18 MA 0025, 2020-Ohio-633, ¶ Case No. 26 NO 0536  – 13 – 14-17. There, Thomas was convicted of 19 counts of rape of a minor child. Id. The indictment charged him with 16 counts of rape and 3 counts of rape by force or threat of force. The first 16 counts identically charged that “on or between August 12, 2011 and August 11, 2015,” Thomas engaged in sexual conduct with the victim, the victim was less than 13 years old, and he compelled the child victim to submit by force or threat of force. Id. at ¶ 9. The other three counts charged that “on or between August 12, 2015 and February 29, 2016,” he engaged in sexual conduct with the victim and compelled him to submit by force or threat of force. Id. On appeal, Thomas relied upon Valentine and argued that the indictment violated his due process and double jeopardy protections. He asserted that the “carbon copy” charges of multiple counts of child rape failed to put him on notice of the charges or protect him from any future prosecution for the same offenses. In deciding not to follow Valentine, we looked to our previous explanation in State v. Triplett, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0128, 2018- Ohio-5405: As we recently stated in Miller, this court does not follow Valentine. State v. Miller, 7th Dist., 2018-Ohio-3430, [118] N.E.3d [1094], ¶ 30, citing, e.g., State v. Adams, 7th Dist., 2014-Ohio-5854, 26 N.E.3d 1283, ¶ 36; Billman, 7th Dist. Monroe Nos. 12 MO 3, 12 MO 5 at ¶ 34-36; State v. Clemons, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 10 BE 7, 2011-Ohio-1177, 2011 WL 861847 (finding no due process violations and opining potential double jeopardy concerns can be cured if they arise in the future). This type of argument would improperly protect a defendant who committed multiple instances of the same offense against a child in his care. Miller, 7th Dist., 2018-Ohio-3430, [118] N.E.3d [1094], at ¶ 31, citing Billman, 7th Dist. Monroe Nos. 12 MO 3, 12 MO 5 at ¶ 36. Contrary to the Valentine majority's claim, there is no Case No. 26 NO 0536  – 14 – indication the jury would believe its finding of guilt on one count of child endangering would require a conviction on another count of child endangering merely because it contained the same elements and the same date range. Furthermore, the Sixth Circuit does not rely on Valentine as precedent. Miller, 7th Dist., 2018-Ohio-3430, [118] N.E.3d 1094]. At ¶ 22, citing Coles v. Smith, 577 Fed.Appx. 502, 507- 508 (6th Cir. 2014) (rejecting this argument by a defendant in a case of 43 undifferentiated counts of rape regarding his step-daughter as Valentine used an incorrect standard for habeas). In declining to follow Valentine, we found that Thomas had not offered any new arguments or new reasons why we should follow Valentine. 2020-Ohio-633, ¶ 17. We also cited to the victim's testimony that while he did not recall the exact number of times Thomas raped him because it was too many to count, he recalled that when he was nine, ten, eleven and twelve years old, Thomas raped him at least once per season, and once per season when he was thirteen years old. Id. at ¶ 18. We found that this sufficiently established each count of the charges. Id. {¶47} We next applied this reasoning to Palmer’s case. We explained that the analysis in Thomas applied since the victim’s testimony was similar, but even more specific. Id. at ¶ 28. We pointed to the victim’s testimony “that when appellant lived with her and her family during the dates identified in the indictment, he forced his penis inside of her vagina at least 10 times, put his mouth on her ‘private area’ more times than she could count, but more than 10 times and less than 15, and digitally penetrated her more than five times.” Id. We then affirmed Palmer’s convictions. {¶48} Turning to the case at bar, based on our prior case law, the evidence here was sufficient to support the nine counts of rape. {¶49} I.T. testified that each of the rapes occurred during the summer of 2024 with the last time occurring on July 11, 2024. She differentiated that some of the instances Case No. 26 NO 0536  – 15 – occurred in the kitchen, while other occurred in the bathroom. She explained that sometimes “white goo” came out of Appellant’s private, which she would then spit into the trashcan, while other times nothing came out. I.T. testified that these instances with Appellant happened about ten times. Each of these times, she said, happened on a different day in the summer of 2024. One of those times, she stated, Appellant did not put his private in her mouth but instead laid her down on her mother’s bed and placed his private on her private. Thus, subtracting this time in the bedroom where oral sex did not occur from the ten times, would leave nine counts of rape. {¶50} Moreover, Appellant’s admissions to Cpt. McGilton further support his convictions. While Appellant initially said he could not remember how many times he had sexual contact with I.T., he later told the captain that he thought it was less than ten times. And when the captain named three locations (kitchen, bathroom, bedroom), pertaining the sexual contact, appellant told her “I was a shitty human being in the whole house.” {¶51} In construing the above evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we are required to do in a sufficiency challenge, the State presented sufficient evidence to support each of Appellant’s convictions. {¶52} Accordingly, Appellant’s first assignment of error is without merit and is overruled. {¶53} Appellant’s second assignment of error states: APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. {¶54} Here, Appellant contends his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant points out there was no physical evidence that corroborated I.T.’s claims nor were there any other witnesses. He also claims there was no evidence as to what he specifically did that constituted rape. Appellant goes on to assert that mother had ample reason to fabricate these allegations against him. Appellant notes that mother had become angry with him when she learned he had cheated on her. It was a few months later, on July 11, 2024, when mother took I.T. to the sheriff’s office to file a report yet I.T. did not disclose the rape to the authorities at that time. Then in February 2025, mother learned Appellant was engaged and his fiancé was pregnant. A few weeks later, mother contacted the sheriff’s office to express her concern with the lack of Case No. 26 NO 0536  – 16 – investigation. Appellant further contends he offered credible testimony in his defense where he denied any sexual contact with I.T. {¶55} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences 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. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380. “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.’” Id. at 387, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed.1990) (Emphasis sic). In making its determination, a reviewing court is not required to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution but may consider and weigh all of the evidence produced at trial. Id. at 390. {¶56} Yet granting a new trial is only appropriate in extraordinary cases where the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983). This is because determinations of witness credibility, conflicting testimony, and evidence weight are primarily for the trier of the facts who sits in the best position to judge the weight of the evidence and the witnesses’ credibility by observing their gestures, voice inflections, and demeanor. State v. Rouse, 2005-Ohio-6328, ¶ 49 (7th Dist.), citing State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 205 (1996); State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). Thus, “[w]hen there exist two fairly reasonable views of the evidence or two conflicting versions of events, neither of which is unbelievable, it is not our province to choose which one we believe.” State v. Dyke, 2002-Ohio-1152 (7th Dist.). {¶57} Only when “it is patently apparent that the factfinder lost its way,” should an appellate court overturn the jury verdict. State v. Woullard, 2004-Ohio-3395, ¶ 81 (2d Dist.). If a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a new trial is to be ordered. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387. “No judgment resulting from a trial by jury shall be reversed on the weight of the evidence except by the concurrence of all three judges hearing the cause.” State v. Miller, 2002-Ohio-4931, ¶ 36 quoting Ohio Const., art. IV, § 3(B)(3). Case No. 26 NO 0536  – 17 – {¶58} In considering whether Appellant's convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence, in addition to the State's evidence, we must also consider Appellant's testimony. {¶59} Appellant testified that he is on the autism spectrum and suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome, which affects how he communicates and makes it difficult for him to express emotion and communicate effectively. (Tr. 350-351). {¶60} Appellant testified unequivocally that he never engaged in sexual conduct with I.T. (Tr. 351). And he testified that he never made her put her mouth anywhere on his body. (Tr. 351). {¶61} Appellant testified that when he agreed to speak with Cpt. McGilton he believed that he would be able to explain himself and that, if he cooperated, this matter would be resolved. (Tr. 352). He acknowledged that during the interview, he described himself as a bad step-father. (Tr. 352). By a “bad” step-father, Appellant explained that he was talking about his anger, yelling at I.T., and his lack of controlling his anger. (Tr. 353). Appellant said he was not talking about sexual conduct with I.T. (Tr. 353). He stated he agreed to go to counseling because of his anger issues. (Tr. 353). {¶62} Appellant explained that he answered “I’m not going to comment on that” to the question regarding whether he resented sexual things that may have happened between I.T. and him. (State Ex. C; Tr. 355-356). When pressed by the captain about how many times sexual contact between him and I.T. occurred, Appellant answered, “I honestly can’t remember.” (State Ex. C; Tr. 358). Appellant’s counsel asked Appellant why he answered the question that way and Appellant said he was “[t]rying to say no without saying no since no had previously not worked on the detective and she wasn’t taking no for an answer.” (State Ex. C; Tr. 358). He also testified that he did not understand tha