An Ohio appeals court wrongly sat as a “thirteenth juror” and questioned the victim’s credibility in a child rape case rather than deferring to the jury’s credibility determination, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which vacated Nelson Reillo’s 2023 convictions for rape and gross sexual imposition. The victim, identified in court records as “E.C.,” came forward at 17 years old with allegations against Reillo that related to incidents nine years earlier.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy explained that the Eighth District evaluated E.C.’s credibility anew, finding her testimony inconsistent and undetailed. However, an appellate court sits as a thirteenth juror only when that court contradicts a jury’s findings in resolving conflicting evidence, she wrote.

E.C. testified at the trial, and no evidence contradicted her account of the crimes.

“Without conflicting testimony or evidence that completely discredited E.C., the Eighth District had nothing to weigh,” Chief Justice Kennedy wrote. “Consequently, Reillo’s convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence and we therefore reverse the Eighth District’s judgment.”

Teen Reveals Abuse to Medical Provider
At about 8 years old, E.C., her two siblings, and their mother were living in Cleveland when Reillo, E.C.’s mother’s boyfriend, moved into the family’s home. He stayed with them for about a year before he and E.C.’s mother broke up.

About a year later, the family left Cleveland. When E.C. was 17, she sought treatment for a rash and depression at a pediatrician’s office in Trumbull County. There, a physician’s assistant asked about the cause of her depression, and E.C. revealed that she had been sexually abused as a child. She said she had not disclosed the abuse to another adult but wanted to tell her mother with the physician’s assistant present. The medical provider reported E.C.’s allegations to Trumbull County Children Services and referred E.C. to Akron Children’s Hospital’s Child Advocacy Center.

E.C. had a videotaped interview with a social worker at the advocacy center, during which she detailed the abuse by Reillo. She then discussed the case with Cuyahoga County prosecutors.

In January 2023, a grand jury indicted Reillo on two counts of rape of a child under the age of 13 and one count of gross sexual imposition against a child under the age of 13.

At his trial, the physician’s assistant, the social worker, E.C., and a Cleveland police detective testified. A jury convicted Reillo on one count of rape and gross sexual imposition, acquitting him of the other rape charge. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole in 15 years for the rape and five years in prison for the other charge, with the sentences running concurrently. He was fined and classified as a Tier III sex offender.

Reillo appealed his sentence to the Eighth District, which reversed both convictions and remanded the case to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court for a new trial.

The prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Witness Credibility Assessments
Chief Justice Kennedy explained that Reillo argued his rape conviction is against the “manifest weight of the evidence.” When an appellate court considers a manifest-weight challenge, it weighs the evidence and determines whether, in resolving conflicting evidence, “the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.”

The opinion noted that appellate courts can only vacate a jury’s verdict and order a new trial in exceptional cases where the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. During a manifest-weight review, appellate courts can disagree with the fact-finder’s resolution of conflicting evidence.

The opinion explained that appellate courts must be mindful of how the fact-finder evaluated the conflicting evidence and give its credibility determinations deference. This is because the fact-finder is best able to observe the witnesses; assess their demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections; and use these observations to weigh the credibility of their testimony.

Reillo did not testify during his trial or present conflicting evidence, the opinion stated. The Eighth District found what it termed inconsistencies in E.C.’s testimony and claimed the prosecution made factual misstatements during closing arguments. These, the opinion held, were not enough to overturn the jury’s findings and show that the jury clearly lost its way.

The Court noted that appellate courts can only examine a witness’s credibility in a manifest-weight review if there is conflicting evidence about his or her credibility, including testimony so inconsistent as to material facts, so impeached, or so fantastical as to render it patently unbelievable.

The opinion explained that the Eighth District found three instances where E.C. may have contradicted herself or other witnesses. However, even if her testimony was inconsistent, the potential inconsistencies did not pertain to material facts, making them insufficient to justify an appellate court rejecting the jury’s credibility determination on a manifest-weight review.

When giving the proper deference to the jury’s credibility determinations, the record shows Reillo’s convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

“Manifest-weight review is a meaningful protection against unjust convictions,” the Court stated. “Nonetheless, when conducting a manifest-review, appellate courts must defer to the fact-finder’s witness-credibility determinations. Here, the court of appeals failed to do so.”

The case was remanded to the Eighth District to consider Reillo’s other objection to his convictions.

2024-1769. State v. Reillo, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2701.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.