Login | May 11, 2024
Portage County teacher’s sexual imposition case upheld
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: August 4, 2020
The 11th District Court of Appeals has affirmed a Portage County trial court’s findings in the case of a former Portage County high school teacher accused of having inappropriate conduct with three students.
Christiopher DiBattista appealed a judgment in the Portage County Municipal Court, Ravenna Division, sentencing him following findings of guilt for sexual imposition and assault.
DiBattista was indicted in two separate cases on three counts of sexual Imposition, a misdemeanor of the third degree, and one count of assault, all misdemeanors. Each of the three sexual imposition charges alleged a juvenile victim (“Juvenile A,” Juvenile B,” and “Juvenile C”), and Juvenile C was the alleged victim of the assault charge.
All three alleged victims were DiBattista’s students during the 2018-2019 school year.
Juvenile B testified regarding an incident where he was laying on a heater during DiBattista’s class and DiBattista came up and laid on him for several seconds. Juvenile B characterized the incident as being done jokingly.
Juvenile A described an instance where she requested help with a math problem from DiBattista during a test and he placed the palm of his hand on her knee.
DiBattista pled not guilty to the charges, and a bench trial was held on Nov. 19, 2019. The two cases were consolidated and tried together. The trial court granted a Crim.R. 29 motion dismissing the counts pertaining to Juvenile A and Juvenile B.
The two surviving counts were sexual Imposition and assault, both with Juvenile C as the alleged victim. After a brief recess, the trial court found DiBattista guilty on both remaining counts.
Appellate Judge Timothy P. Cannon said in his majority opinion that the key issue in the case was the definition of sexual contact.
“The code section definition of sexual contact means any touching of an erogenous zone of another including without limitation the thigh, the genitals, the buttocks, the pubic region or if the person is a female, a breast for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person,” Cannon wrote. “ The court, upon considering the totality of the circumstances, the evidence and the arguments of counsel, makes a finding of guilty on that charge.”
Next, the panel affirmed the trial court’s sentence for assault – 180 days in jail with 177 suspended, a $100.00 fine and court costs. The sentence was stayed pending the appeal.
“At trial, Juvenile C testified that DiBattista touched her thigh with the back of his head,” Cannon wrote. “The video presented to the trial court depicts this contact taking place, and Juvenile C confirmed through direct testimony. In addition, Juvenile C testified, and the video corroborates, that while laying with his head in her lap, DiBattista reached up and stroked her cheek and eyebrow with his index finger. The state argued that, given the circumstances and the classroom setting with DiBattista as a teacher and Juvenile C as his student, there could be no possible purpose for the contact other than sexual arousal or gratification. On appeal, the state further argues that DiBattista’s actions are indicative of a sexual predator grooming a victim for sexual encounters. The state supports this theory with Juvenile C’s testimony that DiBattista had made a comment early in the school year that she ‘had crumbs on her butt.’ “
The state argued that resting his head on Juvenile C’s lap, when taken in totality with his comments and physical actions, resulted in DiBattista achieving his ultimate goal of engaging in sexual contact.
“Ultimately, we cannot say the trial court’s conclusion that DiBattista’s contact was for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A)(1) was against the manifest weight of the evidence,” Cannon said. “The combination of DiBattista’s previous comments about Juvenile C’s appearance, his continued physical contact with her throughout the school year, and the physical contact captured on video by Juvenile C all support a conclusion by the finder of fact that DiBattista’s failure to observe appropriate physical boundaries had the ultimate goal of his sexual arousal or gratification. Counsel’s suggestion that his client was merely ‘joking around’ belies the inappropriate nature of the contact.”
Appellate judges Thomas R. Wright and Mary Jane Trapp concurred.
The case is cited State v. DiBattista, 2020-Ohio-3564.