The Akron Legal News

Life sentences upheld for man who raped mentally disabled girl

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: November 7, 2014

The 12th District Court of Appeals released an opinion recently affirming the judgment of the Brown County Court of Common Pleas which sentenced Larry Chamberlain to three consecutive life sentences after he was found guilty of raping a mentally disabled minor girl.

Chamberlain was convicted of four counts of rape for sexually abusing 12-year-old S.R., the daughter of his girlfriend, L.R.

S.R. moved in with her mother and Chamberlain in 2011 after she was removed form her grandfather’s care.

She had an IQ of 54 and case summary states that she had a “functional mental disability.”

On Aug. 31, 2011, S.R. informed friends and a counselor at her school that Chamberlain had touched her vagina. The allegation was reported and prompted an investigation into the matter.

S.R. was taken directly from school and placed in a foster home, where she has remained since.

Later that evening, she was transported to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center for a physical examination and a forensic interview with a social worker.

At Chamberlain’s trial, Mina Devine, a pediatric sexual assault nurse examiner, testified that her examination of S.R. revealed an “irregularly shaped hymen,” a “line type abrasion” and “slight redness.”

Dr. Stephanie Kennebeck also examined S.R. and testified at trial.

She stated that her examination revealed “a very jagged and irregular hymenal ring, which is the redundant skin left from the hymen when there’s been penetration of the vagina.”

Dr. Kennebeck stated that, based on her findings, her opinion was that S.R. had sexual intercourse within 72 hours of the exam.

Cecilia Freihofer, a social worker, conducted the forensic interview with S.R. At trial, Freihofer testified that S.R. used drawings to signify that Chamberlain had raped her orally, vaginally and anally.

S.R.’s rape kit indicated that her chest tested positive for amylase, a component of saliva. She later testified that Chamberlain had licked her chest while raping her.

DNA gathered from the rape kit could not be directly matched to Chamberlain but indicated that the DNA was from a male.

S.R.’s mother testified against Chamberlain as part of a plea agreement.

In exchange for her truthful testimony, the state dropped five counts of complicity to rape and accepted her guilty plea to one count of gross sexual imposition.

Still, at trial, L.R.’s testimony reflected a reluctance to incriminate Chamberlain.

Case summary states that, during a recess, the prosecution had to remind L.R. of her plea deal, which would be withdrawn without her truthful testimony.

She “proved much more forthcoming” after the reminder.

L.R. told the trial court that she witnessed Chamberlain raping her daughter on several occasions.

Chamberlain performed cunnilingus on S.R. in L.R.’s presence. L.R. also recalled a time that she entered the apartment and saw Chamberlain and S.R. getting dressed.

One night, L.R. passed out drunk and stated that she awoke to find her daughter face down on the bed beside her while Chamberlain raped her.

There was no indication that the mother tried to stop the encounter. She only testified that, at one point, she told Chamberlain that he had to stop having sex with her child or the state would take S.R. away.

S.R.’s testimony was presented to the jury via video deposition.

In the video, she used anatomically correct pictures to identify the parts of her body that Chamberlain touched and how he raped her.

S.R.’s testimony was graphic and detailed as she described several instances of rape and indicated that Chamberlain did not always use a condom.

She told the trial court that “the last time” she had intercourse with Chamberlain, it was preceded by a “weird” card game with Chamberlain and L.R. in which “people take off their pants and their clothes and then everything else.”

After the game, S.R. stated that her mother left the room to cook dinner.

When L.R. returned, S.R. stated that Chamberlain’s “thing was in mine and then he was on top of me ... when he was putting it in me he was like licking my nipples.”

S.R. testified that this made her mother angry, but not with Chamberlain. The next morning, S.R. awoke to her mother threatening to disown her.

That day, S.R. disclosed the sexual abuse to her friends at school and the counselor.

In his appeal to the 12th District court, Chamberlain presented four assignments of error including an argument that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

“In conducting its review, the appellate court must be mindful that the original trier of fact was in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence,” wrote Presiding Judge Robert Hendrickson, who authored the opinion on behalf of the three-judge appellate panel.

The court of appeals noted that, in her testimony, S.R. demonstrated an adult knowledge of sexual activity and described the sexual acts in “striking detail.”

Moreover, it ruled that her testimony was directly corroborated by L.R. and the testimony of Dr. Kennebeck who, in another assignment of error, Chamberlain claimed should not have been allowed to testify as an expert witness.

“At the outset, we note that Chamberlain’s argument on appeal mischaracterizes the trial court’s findings with respect to Dr. Kennebeck,” wrote Judge Hendrickson.

According to the appellate panel’s review of the proceedings, the state did initially proffer Dr. Kennebeck as an “expert in child sexual abuse.”

However, after Chamberlain’s objection, the trial court limited its ruling to a finding that Dr. Kennebeck was an expert in the respective fields of general pediatric medicine and pediatric emergency medicine.

“This ruling was sufficient to qualify Dr. Kennebeck to testify as to her expert opinion of S.R.’s physical condition at the time of her examination at Children’s Hospital,” wrote Judge Hendrickson, also noting Dr. Kennebeck’s “extensive” training and 10 years of professional experience in the field of pediatric emergency medicine.

Chamberlain presented another assignment of error in which he contended that the trial court erred in applying Ohio’s rape shield law.

Specifically, Chamberlain equated the condition of a torn hymen with a disease and he claimed that, because the state’s evidence implied that S.R.’s hymen was torn during intercourse with him, the rape shield law would allow him to introduce evidence pointing toward a preexisting tear.

During trial, Chamberlain pointed out that, while S.R. was living with her grandfather in Kentucky, L.R.’s ex-boyfriend was charged and found guilty of sexually abusing S.R.

S.R. did admit that the mother’s ex-boyfriend abused her between 20 and 25 times and Chamberlain wanted to use that testimony to bolster his argument that it was that past abuse that caused S.R.’s injuries and a disease that kept them there.

“Despite Chamberlain’s argument to the contrary, a torn hymen is not the equivalent of, or even analogous to a disease,” wrote Judge Hendrickson. “Perhaps even more to the point, even if the trial court had found that a torn hymen falls under the ‘disease’ exception to the rape shield law, Chamberlain’s proffered evidence was of little probative value.”

The appellate panel found that Chamberlain presented no medical evidence to back his theory that the prior sexual abuse was the source of S.R.’s injuries while the state’s medical expert testified that the injuries were caused within 72 hours of S.R.’s medical examination.

The court of appeals overruled that assignment of error along with Chamberlain’s remaining claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his convictions should have merged for sentencing.

Judges Stephen Powell and Michael Powell joined Judge Hendrickson to affirm the judgment of the Brown County court.

The case is cited State v. Chamberlain, 2014-Ohio-4619.

[Back]