The Akron Legal News

62-year prison term for man who molested daughter, step-daughters upheld

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to Legal News
Published: May 15, 2014

A Defiance County man’s 62-year prison term was recently affirmed when the 3rd District Court of Appeals found there was ample evidence that he molested his ex-wives’ children.

Jerry Stairhime was indicted on charges of gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, and six counts of rape in May 14, 2013.

Each of the charges alleged that he had molested his stepdaughters, their friends and his natural daughter.

Stairhime pleaded not guilty to each of the charges and the matter proceeded to a jury trial in the Defiance County Court of Common Pleas.

At trial, the state called each of the girls and their mothers to testify.

A.L.P. was the first victim to testify. She told the court that when she was 11 years old, Stairhime was married to her mother.

She said that on one occasion she fell asleep on Stairhime’s lap and after she woke up he started crying and told her that he touched her “down there” and asked her not to tell anyone.

On several other occasions, A.L.P. claimed her step-father came into her room at night and touched her upper thigh.

She said she told her mother about the incidents at the time, but her mother did not believe her.

E.K.S. also testified against Stairhime, who was married to her mother when E.K.S. was 15.

She said Stairhime often made “uncomfortable” comments about her breasts and her butt and that on one occasion she woke up to him touching her inner thigh and vaginal area.

She said she told her boyfriend and her mother shortly after the incident took place, which put a stop to Stairhime’s actions.

S.B. told the jury that she was friends with Stairhime’s daughter and spent the night at his house when she was 11 years old.

She recalled Stairhime teaching her and his daughter to check for breast cancer and said he directed the girls to put their hands down their tank tops and check for lumps. He then had them check each other in front of him, she said.

Later that night, S.B. alleged Stairhime called her into his bedroom to talk multiple times after his daughter fell asleep.

She eventually fell asleep in his room and woke up to him fondling her.

She testified that she asked him to stop but he put his hand back in her pants after a few moments.

Ultimately, she stated that he penetrated her digitally and then raped her.

Stairhime’s daughter, A.P.S. offered corroborating testimony about the breast cancer checks and stated that when she woke up the following morning S.B. was asleep in Stairhime’s bed and he was on the floor beside A.P.S.

S.B. said she reported the incident to her principal and Job and Family Services but she eventually told them that the accusations were untrue because spending her whole summer dealing with the matter “ruined her life.”

A.P.S. testified that she didn’t remember as much of the incident as S.B. because by the time it happened, Stairhime had already been molesting her.

She claimed that he performed oral sex on her multiple times and had her perform oral sex on him at least twice.

E.K.S.’s mother testified that when she was with Stairhime he told her “things he had done” to a previous wife’s daughter and that he “had fantasized of having sex” with E.K.S. or A.P.S.

In his defense, Stairhime called his current fiancé and her daughters to testify.

Each of them testified that he was “awesome” and that they had not seen him do anything inappropriate.

They all also stated that A.P.S. was “a liar,” “two-faced,” “manipulative” and that she “uses people.”

Nevertheless, the jury found Stairhime guilty of all of the charges against him and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 62 years in prison.

Stairhime argued before the three-judge appellate panel that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because there was no physical evidence against him and there were credibility issues with each of the alleged victims.

Upon review, the appellate panel maintained that the jury was able to see and hear the girls’ testimony and, therefore, could best judge their credibility.

“Stairhime contends that since S.B. reported the incident and then later recanted, her testimony was not credible. However, S.B. explained why she recanted her earlier statement, and the jury was free to judge her credibility,” Judge Stephen Shaw wrote for the court.

Similarly, the judges ruled that the jury heard allegations that A.P.S. fabricated the acts against her because he was “manipulative.”

That jury still determined the girl’s testimony to be credible and the appellate panel declined to disturb that notion.

The judges found that each of the girls offered similar testimony that Stairhime fondled them while they slept.

They determined that such testimony was consistent with Stairhime’s confession to E.K.S. that he touched her while she slept on his lap.

“Stairhime’s only argument on appeal to counter his conviction against E.K.S. is that there was no physical evidence. However, despite the lack of physical evidence, the victim’s testimony is more than adequate to sustain a conviction,” Judge Shaw stated, overruling his manifest weight arguments.

Stairhime next challenged his sentenced.

“Stairhime argues generally that his aggregate prison sentence of 62 years was excessive as he had no prior felonies and does not have an extensive criminal history,” Judge Shaw stated.

However, the trial court justified its sentencing decision by citing Stairhime’s lack of remorse and the severity and repetition of his offenses.

The trial judge expressed concern that Stairhime would commit similar acts in the future, “if you think that you could get away with it,” and stated that he remained a significant risk to the public.

“However, as the record illustrates that the trial court made adequate findings to support consecutive sentences and the trial court stated that it had considered the appropriate statutes, we cannot find that the trial court’s sentence was excessive or that it was clearly and convincingly contrary to law,” Judge Shaw stated.

Presiding Judge John Willamowski and Judge John Rogers concurred and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

The case is cited State v. Stairhime, 2014-Ohio-1791.

[Back]