The Akron Legal News

Man who raped his teenage daughter has appeal rejected

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: November 20, 2014

A three-judge panel for the 10th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed a man’s convictions for various sex crimes after ruling that the evidence properly showed that he raped his daughter.

Defendant Joseph Coogan appealed his convictions for rape, sexual battery and kidnapping from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

He argued that the lower court found him guilty contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that his attorney’s closing argument was so deficient that it denied him the right to effective assistance of counsel.

The facts of the case state that Coogan’s charges stemmed from a party in May 2013.

On the night in question, Coogan was drinking with his 19-year-old daughter, K.C., as well as Cierra Chapman and her brother S.C.

Late into the party, K.C. was very intoxicated and started to get emotional.

Other party guests told her to go to bed and Coogan carried her upstairs to her bedroom with S.C. showing him the way.

S.C. said he saw Coogan and K.C. lay down on the bed with their clothes on before he left them alone.

He checked in on them 15 minutes later and said they were under a blanket and K.C. wanted a cigarette.

The three of them then smoked a cigarette and talked for a bit before S.C. left the bedroom.

At trial, K.C. said she did not remember S.C. going to the bedroom with her or smoking a cigarette with him.

Instead, she said she remembered laying down on the bed with Coogan while both of them were fully clothed.

She testified that Coogan then proceeded to remove her pants, bra and underwear and climbed on top of her.

She said he touched her breasts and digitally penetrated her while telling her to be quiet and holding a blanket over her mouth.

K.C. said Coogan’s clothes were on during the encounter but his pants were pulled down.

She said the incident stopped when Chapman entered the room and Coogan jumped up and zipped his pants. He then left the room and told Chapman to watch her.

That was when K.C. told Coogan what happened. She testified that she was menstruating at the time and Coogan had removed her tampon.

That tampon later tested positive for male DNA as did K.C.’s bra. Coogan also fit a DNA profile found on K.C.’s underwear.

Chapman testified that when she walked in the room Coogan quickly jumped from the bed and covered K.C. with a blanket. She said his pants and belt were unbuckled.

After Coogan left, Chapman said K.C. told her “I think my dad touched me.”

She removed the blanket and saw that K.C.’s pants and underwear were around her ankles, her bra was pulled down and her shirt was pulled up.

In his own defense, Coogan testified he and K.C. fell asleep after smoking with S.C. He said at one point K.C. woke up and started taking off her clothes.

He tried to stop her and eventually covered her with a blanket so she would go back to sleep. He explained that he was just readjusting his belt when Chapman walked in.

“Issues of witness credibility and concerning the weight to attach to specific testimony remain primarily within the province of the trier of fact, whose opportunity to make those determinations is superior to that of a reviewing court,” Judge Gary Tyack wrote on behalf of the 10th District.

Upon review, the appellate judges found that there was enough competent and credible evidence to find Coogan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, including Chapman seeing him hastily buckling his pants, K.C.’s state of undress and the male DNA found on the evidence.

“We cannot say that the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice,” Judge Tyack stated, overruling Coogan’s first assignment of error.

Coogan next asserted that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge K.C.’s credibility more during closing arguments.

Specifically he stated that K.C. was initially unsure if an attack took place and he opined that his counsel should have argued she was paranoid.

“Even if these bits of testimony had been emphasized in closing argument, we have no reason to find that the outcome of the trial would have been different. For us to find prejudicial error, appellant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the trial would have been different,” Judge Tyack stated.

Presiding Judge Lisa Sadler and Judge John Connor joined Judge Tyack in overruling both assignments of error.

The case is cited State v. Coogan, 2014-Ohio-4775.

[Back]