[Cite as State v. Zimmerman, 2026-Ohio-3568.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
MADISON COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NO. CA2025-10-026
Appellee, :
OPINION AND
vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY
9/14/2026
EDWIN E. ZIMMERMAN, :
Appellant. :
:
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CRI 2022 0047
Nicholas A. Adkins, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, and Rachel M. Price and Michael S. Klamo, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Casey Bailey & Maines, PLLC, and Elizabeth Arrick, for appellant.
OPINION
SIEBERT, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Edwin Zimmerman, appeals his conviction for one count of rape
in the Madison County Court of Common Pleas. The prosecution was commenced nearly
Madison CA2025-10-026
18 years after the offense. Zimmerman argues that the preindictment delay violated his
due process rights, that the trial court improperly admitted physical and DNA evidence,
and that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 2} After a thorough review of the record, we find no merit in any of
Zimmerman's assignments of error. Zimmerman failed to establish actual prejudice
resulting from the preindictment delay, the State sufficiently authenticated the challenged
evidence, and the jury did not clearly lose its way in finding him guilty. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Facts and Procedural History
A. Assault and Initial Report
{¶ 3} In 2004, "Jane," then 18 years old, lived with Zimmerman in his home in
West Jefferson, Ohio. Zimmerman was in his 40s. Jane's fiancé, "Andy," had also lived
in the home but had recently begun serving a three-month jail sentence. Jane's six-monthold son spent much of his time at the nearby home of Jane's mother, "Mary."
{¶ 4} On the evening of April 2, 2004, Jane went drinking with friends and
returned home sometime after midnight. Finding the house empty, she went to bed. She
awoke early the next morning and noticed a sex toy and a condom beside her bed, neither
of which belonged to her. As Jane tried to determine what had happened the night before,
she saw Zimmerman standing in the doorway.
{¶ 5} Jane testified that Zimmerman entered the room, sat on the bed, and began
touching her. According to Jane, Zimmerman placed his hand over her mouth and told
her that he liked what he felt and that she "was going to give it to him whether [she] liked
it or not." Zimmerman also stated that he was going to "pay back [Andy] for cheating on
[her]" before forcing her onto the bed and raping her.
{¶ 6} Jane testified that she repeatedly told Zimmerman to stop, cried, and initially
-2-Madison CA2025-10-026
struggled against him. She eventually stopped resisting because, in her words, it was
"just easier to lay there until he was done." Jane testified that Zimmerman forcibly
engaged in vaginal intercourse with her and performed cunnilingus against her will.
Afterward, Zimmerman handed her the house phone and told her to call the police
because he would "never get caught," before leaving the room.
{¶ 7} Jane showered and called Mary to pick her up. She also attempted to
contact Andy but was unable to reach him. Mary picked Jane up between 8:00 a.m. and
9:00 a.m., and Jane remained at her mother's home throughout the day. Later that
evening, because Mary was hosting a dinner party, Jane asked to be dropped off near
Zimmerman's residence. Rather than return home, however, Jane walked to a friend's
house.
{¶ 8} At approximately 8:30 p.m., Jane called Mary and reported that Zimmerman
had raped her. Mary immediately contacted the police. Officers Gary McNeal and Matt
Bowersock from the West Jefferson Police Department (WJPD) met Jane and Mary at
Zimmerman's residence. When no one answered the door, the officers instructed Jane to
enter the residence and retrieve the clothing she had worn during the assault. Jane
returned with gray shorts and black lace underwear.
{¶ 9} The officers then transported Jane to the police station, where she provided
a written statement and participated in an interview. Officers later took her to a hospital
for a sexual-assault examination. Hospital personnel collected the blue-and-black
checkered underwear she was wearing and completed a sexual-assault evidence kit.
Officer McNeal took custody of the clothing recovered from Zimmerman's residence and
the underwear collected at the hospital and transported the items to WJPD. He initially
stored the evidence in his personal locker before transferring it to Detective Rodney
Chenos, the department's only detective, who assumed responsibility for the
-3-Madison CA2025-10-026
investigation.
{¶ 10} Although hospital personnel completed a sexual-assault evidence kit, the
WJPD never received or retrieved the completed kit from the hospital, and the record
does not explain why. Similarly, none of the physical evidence collected and preserved
by WJPD was submitted for forensic testing during the initial investigation.
{¶ 11} As part of the investigation, Detective Chenos interviewed Zimmerman over
a recorded telephone line. Detective Chenos told Zimmerman that Jane claimed he had
"sex with her unauthorized" and was "more or less claiming you raped her." Zimmerman
denied this, stating that "that did not . . . I can definitely tell you that did not happen." He
repeatedly said he "didn't understand" the accusation and explained that he and Jane
had recently argued about her child after he threatened to have the child taken away.
Zimmerman later stated that he did not wake up until 1:30 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. on the day
of the alleged assault and that Jane had come to the house to borrow his car and watch
television.
{¶ 12} The investigation ultimately concluded without criminal charges. In a
memorandum dated May 7, 2004, Detective Chenos documented the basis for that
decision. The memorandum included several factual assertions that were either
inaccurate or later disputed, including statements that Jane had been "partying all night
with the accused" and that there was no physical evidence supporting her allegation.
{¶ 13} The case then remained dormant for many years. It was not revisited until
physical evidence from the original investigation was rediscovered in the WJPD evidence
room.
B. Renewed Investigation
{¶ 14} In November 2020, Officer Mallory Teders was tasked with organizing the
WJPD evidence room. While reviewing evidence stored in the sexual-offenses section,
-4-Madison CA2025-10-026
she discovered three envelopes and a paper bag containing evidence from Jane's case,
including the black lace underwear, gray shorts, and blue-and-black checkered
underwear. Officer Teders brought the materials to Detective Casey Conley, who directed
her to submit the evidence to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation for forensic
testing.
{¶ 15} On February 5, 2021, Detective Conley contacted Jane and asked her to
come to the police department. Detective Conley and Detective Brandon Smith
interviewed Jane and then allowed her to review the statement she had provided in 2004.
During the interview, Jane initially told detectives that Zimmerman had tied her up during
the assault. After reviewing her prior statement, however, Jane realized that she had been
mistaken. She explained that the feeling of Zimmerman holding her down had caused her
to remember the incident as though she had been tied up.
{¶ 16} Jane also described the effect the passage of time had had on her memory.
She acknowledged that she had forgotten much of the incident and had "blocked
everything out" after 17 years. She explained that she wanted to move forward with her
life after the case was not pursued in 2004 and had done so.
{¶ 17} Detectives Conley and Smith also conducted a recorded telephone call with
Zimmerman. Zimmerman again denied any wrongdoing. He stated that Jane had left her
child at his residence on the day of the alleged assault while she spent time with her
mother. When asked whether there was any reason his DNA might be found on Jane's
clothing, Zimmerman responded that he had done Jane's laundry. He further stated that
his semen would not be present, explaining, "sperm, no . . . there's no way."
{¶ 18} BCI forensic scientist Sara Devine analyzed the submitted evidence. DNA
testing identified Zimmerman's DNA on both pairs of Jane's underwear. Specifically,
testing detected semen matching Zimmerman's DNA profile on both the blue-and-black
-5-Madison CA2025-10-026
checkered underwear and the black lace underwear.
C. Indictment and Pretrial Proceedings
{¶ 19} On March 11, 2022, a Madison County Grand Jury indicted Zimmerman on
three criminal counts: (1) kidnapping, in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(4), (2) rape by
cunnilingus, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), and (3) rape by vaginal intercourse, in
violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2). The kidnapping charge was later dismissed and the
matter proceeded on the two remaining counts.
{¶ 20} Zimmerman moved to dismiss the indictment based on preindictment delay.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The court later denied
Zimmerman's motion for reconsideration. Although the trial court acknowledged that
certain witnesses and items of evidence were no longer available, it found that any
resulting prejudice was speculative and, in some respects, "may actually prejudice the
State's case." The trial court concluded that Zimmerman had "failed to prove any actual
prejudice due to the delay in the filing of the Indictment."
D. Jury Trial and Sentence
{¶ 21} The matter proceeded to a jury trial. The State presented testimony from
Detective Conley, Officer Teders, Jane, Mary, and BCI forensic scientist Sara Devine.
The State did not call Officer McNeal, Officer Bowersock, Detective Chenos, or Chief Cox.
Officer McNeal and Chief Cox were deceased by the time of trial. Officer Bowersock was
alive and residing in North Carolina, while Detective Chenos had retired and continued to
reside locally. The evidence also established that Andy, Jane's fiancé, had passed away.
{¶ 22} Detective Conley testified that he was familiar with the original investigation
of Zimmerman's case but had not participated in it. He explained that he learned about
the investigation through discussions with other officers, including Officer McNeal.
Detective Conley testified regarding the circumstances under which the physical evidence
-6-Madison CA2025-10-026
was rediscovered in 2020 and the procedures used to preserve and document the chain
of custody.
{¶ 23} Officer Teders testified that she discovered the physical evidence while
organizing the police department's evidence room. She identified the items at trial and
testified about the chain-of-custody documents associated with them. Officer Teders was
not employed by the department in 2004 and therefore had no personal knowledge
concerning the condition or organization of the evidence room at that time. She
nevertheless testified that the sealed packages showed no indication that they had been
opened, altered, or otherwise accessed before being submitted to BCI.
{¶ 24} Mary testified about Jane's behavior on the day of the alleged assault and
Jane's disclosure that Zimmerman had raped her. Mary also testified that she contacted
law enforcement and accompanied Jane to the hospital for a sexual assault examination.
{¶ 25} Jane testified about the assault and the events surrounding it. She
acknowledged that the passage of time had affected her memory and admitted that she
had mistakenly remembered being tied up. She nevertheless maintained that Zimmerman
had forcibly engaged in vaginal intercourse with her.
{¶ 26} Jane was also questioned about statements contained in earlier reports. In
one statement, she indicated that "we were up partying all night." Jane explained that
"we" referred to her and her friends, not Zimmerman. She maintained that she had not
spent time with Zimmerman on the Friday night preceding the assault and had not been
"partying" with him. Her testimony thus conflicted with Detective Chenos' memorandum,
which stated that she had been "partying all night with the accused."
{¶ 27} Devine testified regarding her forensic analysis and explained that semen
recovered from Jane's underwear matched Zimmerman's DNA profile.
{¶ 28} Zimmerman presented one witness, Dr. Frank Byrinyi, an emergency-room
-7-Madison CA2025-10-026
physician who treated Jane on the day she reported the assault. Dr. Byrinyi had no
independent recollection of that particular shift and was unable to provide any information
concerning the whereabouts of the sexual assault kit.
{¶ 29} Throughout trial, defense counsel extensively cross-examined the State's
witnesses, focusing on gaps in Jane's memory, inconsistencies in her accounts, the loss
of the sexual assault kit, and deficiencies in the original investigation.1 Counsel argued
that the investigation had been mishandled and that, given the evidentiary deficiencies,
the State had failed to meet its burden of proof.
{¶ 30} The jury found Zimmerman guilty of rape based on vaginal intercourse and
not guilty of the rape count based on cunnilingus. The trial court sentenced Zimmerman
to ten years in prison.
{¶ 31} Zimmerman now appeals, raising three assignments of error for review.
II. Appeal
{¶ 32} Zimmerman challenges the denial of his motion to dismiss based on
preindictment delay, the admission of physical and DNA evidence, and the weight of the
evidence supporting his conviction. We address his arguments in that order.
A. Preindictment Delay
{¶ 33} In his first assignment of error, Zimmerman argues that the trial court erred
by denying his motion to dismiss based on preindictment delay. He contends that the
nearly 18-year delay between the offense and his indictment resulted in actual prejudice
to his defense.
{¶ 34} As an initial matter, although 18 years elapsed between the offense and the
1. As the trial court noted, there were serious deficiencies in the original investigation. In particular, the court expressed significant concerns about the lack of professionalism exhibited during the original investigation and acknowledged that those deficiencies adversely affected the victim, the defendant, and the administration of justice.
-8-Madison CA2025-10-026
indictment, the case was commenced within the applicable statute of limitations. At the
time of the offense, the statute of limitations for rape was 20 years. The General Assembly
later extended the limitations period to 25 years. 2015 Ohio Laws 19. 2 Thus, the issue
before us is not whether the indictment was timely, but whether the delay violated
Zimmerman's due process rights.
1. Applicable Law
{¶ 35} A criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by both the
United States and Ohio Constitutions. State v. Hopkins, 2025-Ohio-2102, ¶ 20 (12th
Dist.). Those protections, however, apply only after a person has been formally accused
of a crime. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313 (1971). The government is not
constitutionally required to discover, investigate, and prosecute a person within any
particular period of time. Id.
{¶ 36} Statutes of limitations generally provide the primary safeguard against stale
criminal charges by establishing definitive periods within which the State must commence
prosecution. State v. Jones, 2016-Ohio-5105, ¶ 11. See also United States v. Lovasco,
431 U.S. 783, 789 (1977) (recognizing that statutes of limitations provide predictable and
legislatively determined limits on the initiation of criminal charges). Compliance with the
applicable statute of limitations, however, does not foreclose a due process claim. An
unjustifiable delay between the commission of an offense and the filing of an indictment
may violate a defendant's due process rights under the United States and Ohio
Constitutions when the delay results in actual prejudice to the defense. Jones at ¶ 12,
citing State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984), paragraph two of the syllabus.
2. Ohio law also contains provisions permitting prosecution beyond 25 years in certain circumstances, including when a DNA identification is made more than 25 years after the offense. R.C. 2901.13(D)(1); State v. Anderson, 2022-Ohio-1313, ¶ 11, fn. 3 (8th Dist.).
-9-Madison CA2025-10-026
{¶ 37} The defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating actual prejudice.
State v. Wilson, 2025-Ohio-134, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.). If the defendant establishes actual
prejudice, the burden shifts to the State to demonstrate a justifiable reason for the delay.
Id.
2. Actual Prejudice
{¶ 38} Whether a defendant has suffered actual prejudice is determined on a caseby-case basis by considering the evidence as it existed when the indictment was filed and
determining whether the delay impaired the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial. State
v. August, 2019-Ohio-4126, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 39} "Actual prejudice exists when missing evidence or unavailable testimony,
identified by the defendant and relevant to the defense, would minimize or eliminate the
impact of the state's evidence and bolster the defense." Jones, 2016-Ohio-5105, at ¶ 28.
Thus, a defendant must do more than identify missing evidence or unavailable witnesses.
The defendant must specifically identify the lost evidence or testimony and explain how it
would have minimized or eliminated the impact of the State's evidence and bolstered the
defense. State v. Hahaj, 2025-Ohio-52, ¶ 23 (1st Dist.), citing Jones at ¶ 28.
{¶ 40} Although the State cites State v. Fox, 2009-Ohio-556, ¶ 37 (12th Dist.), for
the proposition that a defendant must demonstrate the exculpatory value of missing
evidence, Fox predates the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Jones. Under Jones, a
defendant need not establish that the missing evidence would conclusively prove
innocence or constitute direct exculpatory evidence. Jones at ¶ 27. The defendant must,
however, establish a concrete connection between the missing evidence or testimony and
the defense. Id. at ¶ 28.
a. Unavailable Witnesses
{¶ 41} Zimmerman first argues that he was prejudiced by several witnesses who
- 10 -Madison CA2025-10-026
allegedly became unavailable because of death, infirmity, or memory loss, including
Detective Chenos, Officer Bowersock, Officer McNeal, and Chief Cox. The record,
however, does not establish actual prejudice.
{¶ 42} Detective Chenos and Officer Bowersock were alive and available to testify
at trial. Zimmerman cites no authority establishing that diminished memory or general
infirmity renders a witness unavailable for purposes of a preindictment delay analysis.
More importantly, faded memories, standing alone, do not establish actual prejudice.
They are a natural consequence of the passage of time. State v. Adams, 2015-Ohio3954, at ¶ 105, citing United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 325-326 (1971).
{¶ 43} Officer McNeal's death presents a slightly different issue, but it likewise
does not establish prejudice attributable to preindictment delay. Officer McNeal died in
June 2022, approximately two months after Zimmerman was indicted. Because prejudice
is assessed as it existed when the indictment was filed, his subsequent death cannot
establish prejudice attributable to the preindictment delay. State v. Walls, 2002-Ohio5059, ¶ 52.
{¶ 44} Zimmerman also argues that Chief Cox (who died prior to the indictment)
may have possessed information favorable to the defense concerning Jane's alleged
failure to cooperate with the investigation, inconsistent statements, failure to provide
requested medical information, and refusal to submit to a polygraph examination. We
recognize that a defendant need not establish with certainty the precise testimony a
deceased witness would have provided. Jones, 2016-Ohio-5105, at ¶ 27-28. As the Ohio
Supreme Court has explained, a claim of actual prejudice is not "fatally speculative"
merely because a defendant cannot articulate exactly how an unavailable witness would
testify. Id. at ¶ 28. Nevertheless, a defendant must identify unavailable testimony relevant
to the defense and explain how it would have minimized or eliminated the impact of the
- 11 -Madison CA2025-10-026
State's evidence and bolstered the defense. Id. Here, Zimmerman has not shown that
Chief Cox possessed material information that could not be obtained through other
sources. This is not a situation, as in Luck, where the unavailable witness was purportedly
the only eyewitness to the purported crime. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d at 157-158. Although
Detective Chenos reportedly discussed investigations with Chief Cox, the record
establishes that Detective Chenos was the primary investigator. Zimmerman has not
demonstrated that Chief Cox possessed information that would have undermined the
State's case or bolstered the defense. Under these circumstances, the loss of Chief Cox
as a witness does not establish actual prejudice.
{¶ 45} Zimmerman similarly argues that Detective Chenos, Officer McNeal, and
Officer Bowersock could have testified that their reports fully and accurately documented
all information gathered during the investigation. The record, however, contains no basis
to conclude that these officers possessed materially favorable information omitted from
their reports or that their testimony would have undermined the State's evidence. Police
reports are investigative summaries, and an officer's failure to document a particular fact
does not establish that the fact was never communicated. See State ex rel. Myers v.
Meyers, 2022-Ohio-1915, ¶ 45; State v. Thornton, 2005-Ohio-3744, ¶ 22 (2nd Dist.).
{¶ 46} Zimmerman further contends that the officers could have explained why
certain investigative steps were taken or not taken. But the reasons underlying those
investigative decisions have little bearing on whether Zimmerman committed the charged
offenses. The question for the jury was whether Zimmerman committed the offenses, not
whether the original investigation was conducted appropriately. Moreover, the record
reflects that defense counsel extensively cross-examined the officers who did testify
regarding perceived deficiencies in the investigation, including the handling of evidence
and other investigative decisions. Zimmerman has not demonstrated that additional
- 12 -Madison CA2025-10-026
testimony from any other officer about the investigative steps taken or not taken would
have differed from the evidence presented or otherwise affected his ability to defend
against the charges.
{¶ 47} Finally, Zimmerman argues that his girlfriend and children could have
provided favorable testimony had they been interviewed in 2004. This argument,
however, concerns the scope and quality of the original investigation rather than prejudice
resulting from the delay between the offense and indictment. The alleged failure to
interview these individuals occurred when the investigation was conducted and was not
caused by the subsequent passage of time. Moreover, Zimmerman claims only that these
witnesses could have corroborated his account of the timeframe of certain events,
whether Jane drove his vehicle without permission, and details regarding her movements
after the assault (such as whether she returned home earlier than she remembered).
None of these matters bears directly on whether the rape occurred. This case is therefore
unlike Luck, where the unavailable witness was purportedly the only eyewitness to the
offense. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d at 157-158. None of the witnesses identified by Zimmerman
was present during the assault or could have provided testimony concerning whether the
offense did or did not happen. Zimmerman's assertions regarding these witnesses are
imprecise and speculative and do not establish actual prejudice.
{¶ 48} In sum, Zimmerman has identified several witnesses whose testimony he
believes might have benefited the defense. However, he has not demonstrated that any
unavailable witness possessed evidence that could not be obtained through other means
or that the loss of such testimony would have minimized or eliminated the impact of the
State's evidence. Jones, 2016-Ohio-5105, at ¶ 26-28. Nor has he shown that any claimed
loss of evidence resulted from the preindictment delay itself. Because Zimmerman's
claims of prejudice are speculative, he has failed to satisfy his initial burden of establishing
- 13 -Madison CA2025-10-026
actual prejudice.
b. Sexual-Assault Kit
{¶ 49} Zimmerman also argues that the loss of the sexual-assault kit prejudiced
his defense because forensic testing might have produced favorable evidence. We
acknowledge that the loss of the kit is troubling, but the record does not establish actual
prejudice resulting from its loss.
{¶ 50} In this case, the sexual-assault kit was apparently unavailable from the
outset. Although hospital personnel completed the kit, and there was testimony that the
examination was performed, the kit was apparently never provided to WJPD, and the
record contains no indication of what happened to it. Thus, it's unavailability cannot be
attributed to the delay between the original investigation and Zimmerman's indictment.
That is, even if Zimmerman had been indicted shortly after the offense, no evidence
establishes—beyond speculation largely based on the relative passage of time—that the
kit would have been available to the State or to Zimmerman.
{¶ 51} This may not be a wholly satisfactory result, and it is extremely concerning
that such sensitive material went missing, but the surrounding circumstances further cast
doubt on Zimmerman's claim that the kit would have produced favorable evidence.
Zimmerman's argument as to the missing kit is speculative and rests on the assumption
that the kit might have produced exculpatory evidence. But the State had recovered
physical evidence in the form of Jane's clothing, in particular, her underwear, that
contained semen matching Zimmerman's DNA profile. Given that evidence, it is equally,
if not more likely, that the sexual-assault kit would have produced inculpatory evidence
rather than exculpatory evidence. As the trial court observed, the absence of additional
forensic evidence may have benefited Zimmerman rather than prejudiced him.
{¶ 52} Moreover, this is not a case in which the State's evidence consisted solely
- 14 -Madison CA2025-10-026
of Jane's recollection or an uncorroborated accusation. The DNA evidence provided
corroboration independent of Jane's testimony. Zimmerman therefore has not shown that
the loss of the sexual-assault kit minimized or could have minimized the impact of the
State's evidence.
c. Original Decision Not to Prosecute
{¶ 53} Zimmerman also appears to rely on the State's decision not to prosecute in
2004 as evidence of prejudice. That argument also fails. The relevant inquiry in whether
the delay impaired Zimmerman's ability to receive a fair trial, not whether law enforcement
or prosecutors initially declined to pursue charges. Jones, 2016-Ohio-5105, at ¶ 18. The
fact that the investigation remained dormant for many years does not demonstrate actual
prejudice.
3. Failure to Establish Actual Prejudice
{¶ 54} Zimmerman has not demonstrated that the delay impaired his ability to
receive a fair trial. His claims rest largely on speculation about what unavailable witnesses
might have said and what testing of the missing sexual-assault kit might have revealed.
But Jones requires more than speculation. Zimmerman must identify the missing
evidence or testimony and demonstrate how it would have minimized or eliminated the
impact of the State's evidence and bolstered his defense.
{¶ 55} Zimmerman has not made that showing. Because he failed to establish
actual prejudice, the burden never shifted to the State to demonstrate a justifiable reason
for the delay. Adams, 2015-Ohio-3954, at ¶ 107. The trial court therefore properly denied
Zimmerman's motion to dismiss.
{¶ 56} Accordingly, Zimmerman's first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Admission of Evidence
{¶ 57} In his second assignment of error, Zimmerman argues that the trial court
- 15 -Madison CA2025-10-026
erred by admitting the physical and DNA evidence, including the underwear, shorts, and
resulting DNA-test results. He contends that the State failed to establish an adequate
chain of custody and, therefore, failed to properly authenticate the exhibits pursuant to
Evid.R. 901.
{¶ 58} The admission of evidence rests within the trial court's discretion and such
decisions will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Turner, 2020-Ohio1548, ¶ 31 (12th Dist.); State v. Gomez, 2005-Ohio-1606, ¶ 19 (3rd Dist.). An abuse of
discretion occurs when the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. State v. Brock, 2026-Ohio-2036, ¶ 65 (12th Dist.)
{¶ 59} Evid.R. 901(A) provides that "[t]he requirement of authentication or
identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient
to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." This
threshold for authentication is low and does not require conclusive proof of authenticity.
State v. Cast, 2022-Ohio-3967, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.). Rather, the proponent need only
demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the evidence is authentic. Id., citing State v.
Panzeca, 2020-Ohio-326, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.). Authenticity may be established through
either direct or circumstantial evidence. State v. York, 2022-Ohio-2457, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 60} The State satisfied that burden here. Officer McNeal collected Jane's
underwear and shorts in 2004 and transported them to WJPD. Documentary evidence
identified the items and documented their storage within the department's evidence
system. In 2020, Officer Teders discovered the black lace underwear, blue-and-black
checkered underwear, gray shorts, and hair evidence while conducting an inventory of
the evidence room. Officer Teders identified the items at trial, reviewed the corresponding
evidence records, and testified that the packages remained sealed and showed no
indication that they had been accessed after being placed into storage.
- 16 -Madison CA2025-10-026
{¶ 61} The State also presented Devine's testimony concerning BCI's evidencehandling procedures. Devine explained that BCI documents its chain of custody, follows
procedures designed to prevent contamination, and requires evidence to be properly
packaged and sealed before it is accepted for testing. She testified that the evidence in
this case was received and processed in accordance with those procedures.
{¶ 62} On appeal, Zimmerman identifies several alleged deficiencies in the chainof-custody, including uncertainty regarding how the evidence entered the property room,
purported inconsistencies concerning the manner in which the evidence was packaged,
and the absence of testimony from Officer McNeal, who died before trial. But none of
these alleged deficiencies establish that the evidence was altered, contaminated, or
otherwise tampered with.
{¶ 63} As the Ohio Supreme Court has recognized, the State is not required to
establish a perfect or unbroken chain of custody. State v. Gross, 2002-Ohio-5524, ¶ 57;
State v. Jordan, 2016-Ohio-603, ¶ 52 (2d Dist.). Rather, the State need only demonstrate
a reasonable certainty that substitution, alteration, or tampering did not occur. State v.
Rajchel, 2003-Ohio-3975, ¶ 21 (2d Dist.). Breaks or deficiencies in the chain of custody
generally affect the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. State v. Johnson,
2019-Ohio-754, ¶ 24 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 64} Here, Zimmerman presented no evidence that the exhibits had been
altered, contaminated, substituted, or tampered with. Indeed, outside the presence of the
jury, defense counsel acknowledged that there was no reason to believe the evidence
had been tampered with after its collection. Instead, counsel argued that the State had
failed to sufficiently authenticate the evidence under Evid. R. 901.
{¶ 65} The trial court properly rejected that argument. Jane identified the clothing
as hers and testified that she provided the items to law enforcement as part of the
- 17 -Madison CA2025-10-026
investigation. Officer Teders accounted for the evidence from the time she discovered it
in the evidence room through its submission to BCI. Devine testified about BCI's receipt,
handling, and analysis of the evidence. Collectively, this evidence was sufficient to
establish a reasonable likelihood that the exhibits were what the State claimed them to
be.
{¶ 66} Any gaps or inconsistencies in the chain of custody went to the weight and
credibility of the evidence, not its admissibility. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in admitting the challenged exhibits. Zimmerman's second assignment of
error is overruled.
C. Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶ 67} In his third assignment of error, Zimmerman argues that his convictions are
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 68} A manifest-weight challenge concerns the inclination of the greater amount
of credible evidence presented at trial to support one side of the issue rather than the
other. State v. Barnett, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.). In reviewing such a challenge,
an appellate court must examine the entire record, weight the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, consider witness credibility, and determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost
its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice requiring reversal and a new trial.
State v. Deaton, 2026-Ohio-2654, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.). Reversal on manifest-weight grounds
is reserved for the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against
conviction. State v. Brock, 2026-Ohio-2036, ¶ 29 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 69} Zimmerman was convicted of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), which
prohibits a person from engaging in sexual conduct with another when the offender
purposely compels the victim to submit by force or threat of force. R.C. 2907.01(A) defines
"sexual conduct" as "vaginal intercourse between a male and female." Vaginal
- 18 -Madison CA2025-10-026
intercourse between a male and a female means penetration of the vagina with the penis.
State v. Jackson, 2023-Ohio-3749, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 70} Zimmerman challenges Jane's credibility and points to inconsistencies in
her testimony. He also relies upon several of the same issues raised in his other
assignments of error, including the delay in prosecution, the loss of the sexual-assault kit,
and alleged deficiencies in the chain of custody.
{¶ 71} We find no merit to these arguments. The jury was in the best position to
observe the witnesses, evaluate their credibility, and resolve conflicts in the evidence.
State v. Stidum, 2026-Ohio-2975, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.). A conviction is not against the
manifest weight of the evidence merely because the jury chose to believe the State's
witnesses. Brock at ¶ 46.
{¶ 72} Jane provided detailed testimony concerning the assault. Although nearly
two decades had passed since the offense, she testified that Zimmerman entered her
bedroom, physically overpowered her despite her resistance, and forcibly engaged in
vaginal intercourse with her. Jane candidly acknowledged that the passage of time had
affected her recollection and admitted that she had mistakenly remembered being tied
up. Despite these lapses, Jane consistently maintained her central claim that Zimmerman
had forcibly raped her.
{¶ 73} Jane's testimony was also corroborated by other evidence. Mary testified
about Jane's behavior following the assault and her disclosure that Zimmerman had raped
her. The State further presented Devine's testimony that semen matching Zimmerman's
DNA profile was recovered from both pairs of Jane's underwear.
{¶ 74} In his interviews with police, Zimmerman suggested that his DNA may have
been transferred to her clothing because he had done laundry for members of the
household. The jury, however, was not required to accept that explanation. Ultimately,
- 19 -Madison CA2025-10-026
the case turned largely on witness credibility and the weight to be afforded the forensic
evidence. The jury was entitled to credit Jane's testimony, consider the inconsistencies
in her accounts, and resolve those inconsistencies in determining her credibility. State v.
Pilgrim, 2009-Ohio-5357, ¶ 32 (10th Dist.) (recognizing that a jury may consider
inconsistencies and resolve them accordingly); Ohio Jury Instructions, CR § 409.05 (Rev.
August 15, 2012). The jury's decision to credit Jane's testimony does not render the
conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 75} Having reviewed the entire record, weighed the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, and considered the credibility of the witnesses, we conclude that this is not
the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against conviction. The jury
did not clearly lose its way or create a manifest miscarriage of justice in finding
Zimmerman guilty of rape.
{¶ 76} Accordingly, Zimmerman's third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 77} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
- 20 -Madison CA2025-10-026
JUDGMENT ENTRY
The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Madison County Court of
Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.
/s/ Robin N. Piper, Presiding Judge
/s/ Mike Powell, Judge
/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge
- 21 -