Former Ravenna man loses appeal of his conviction in rape of 8-year-old girl

A man sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison for raping and sexually assaulting an 8-year-old girl in Ravenna in 2017 has lost an appeal of his conviction.

According to an opinion filed this week, the 11th District Court of Appeals affirmed the August 2020 conviction of Daniel A. Mugrage, 33, in Portage County Court of Common Pleas.

According to trial testimony, the girl’s mother took the girl to Mugrage’s Ravenna apartment in July 2017, where the girl was told to place her hand on her mother’s hand while it was on Mugrage’s penis. The girl testified that during the night, Mugrage raped her. A jury convicted Mugrage of all four counts in a grand jury indictment, including first-degree felony rape, second-degree felony sexual battery and two counts of third-degree felony gross sexual imposition.

During his September 2020 sentencing hearing, Mugrage claimed innocence, but Judge Becky Doherty sentenced him to life in prison without possibility of parole plus an additional five years. According to Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction records, Mugrage is currently incarcerated in the Ross Correctional Institution.

More: Former probation officer and Kent resident loses appeal of conviction for sexual assaults

According to the 35-page opinion, Mugrage claimed the common pleas court committed seven errors — all of which the appeals court found to be “without merit” — including:

• The court overruled a defense challenge to one juror, who said during jury selection that her daughter had been a victim of sexual abuse 15 years earlier. The opinion says that the woman said she could nevertheless be fair and impartial and the defense did not effectively demonstrate otherwise.

• The defense filed a motion requesting that the prosecution be barred from presenting evidence of “salacious photographs and communications” between Mugrage and the girl’s mother while he was incarcerated following the girl’s rape for failing to register as a sex offender in connection with a 2006 guilty plea to gross sexual imposition involving a then-16-year-old girl. The defense argued that the communications during his incarceration, which the court conceded was irrelevant to the rape case, were also irrelevant because they did not include direct evidence in the rape case.

However, according to the opinion, the communications included Mugrage allegedly proposing future sexual activity between himself and the girl and her mother and photos of the girl and other girls were provided to Mugrage by the mother at Mugrage’s request. The mother then reported the communications to Garrettsville police a little over a year after the incidents in his apartment and this started the investigation resulting in the rape case, making the communications relevant to that case.

• The court overruled defense motions that there was insufficient evidence of rape due to offense going unreported for more than a year, of sexual battery because Mugrage did not have the responsibilities of a parent, and of gross sexual imposition since the girl had her hand on her mother’s hand, not on Mugrage’s penis.

The opinion states that delayed reporting does not qualify as insufficient evidence, though it could call the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of evidence into question. The opinion also says that “skin-to-skin touching” is not necessary in a charge of gross sexual imposition. The sexual battery charged ended up being merged into one of the gross sexual imposition charges and was not a factor in sentencing, the opinion says, and the guilty verdict was therefore “harmless” and the appeals court declined to address claim of insufficient evidence.

However, the opinion also says that the prosecution asserted that Mugrage’s relationship with the mother and his invitation to his home “triggered a duty of care for the child’s protection and support while in his home.”

• The jury’s verdict was not supported by the weight of evidence because the mother and girl both “lied and/or failed to disclose the incidents when initially questioned…”

The opinion says this does not mean the weight of evidence does not support the verdict, though it could raise questions about the credibility of witnesses. However, the opinion adds, the jury is “free to believe” the witnesses. The opinion also says that the mother’s fear of charges against herself and the girl’s fears of making her mother angry and getting her into trouble were reasonable explanations.

• Mugrage claimed his trial attorney did not attempt to have his trial delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The opinion, however, says Mugrage failed to demonstrate that delaying the trial would have resulted in a different outcome in the case.

• Mugrage claimed the court responded incorrectly when the jury, while deliberating the verdict, asked whether the girl’s hand on her mother’s hand constituted “sexual contact” and the court responded it did.

The opinion said the court’s answer to the question “was an accurate statement of the law.”

• The court erred by not granting a motion for a new trial due to the court allowing the prosecution to present the photo and communications evidence the defense considered irrelevant, as well as the issue of the defense attorney not seeking a delay in the trial.

The opinion says that because the appeals court had already found these claims to be without merit, this last claimed error is also without merit.

Reporter Jeff Saunders can be reached at jsaunders@recordpub.com.

This article originally appeared on Record-Courier: Former Ravenna man loses appeal of his conviction in rape of girl, 8