Supreme Court Upholds Spousal Rape Conviction

A wife’s testimony about “having sex” against her will sufficiently described “sexual conduct” as defined by state law, which led to her husband’s convictions for raping her, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a unanimous opinion , the Supreme Court reversed a Sixth District Court of Appeals decision vacating the rape convictions of Stephen Coker Jr. of Wood County. The Sixth District had found Coker’s wife’s testimony was insufficient to connect her terms, such as “sexual activity” and “being intimate,” to specific allegations of unwanted intercourse or oral sex that constituted rape.

Writing for the Court, Justice Megan E. Shanahan stated that once on the witness stand, the wife’s response to the prosecutor’s initial questions indicated her use of the term “having sex” met the definition of “sexual conduct” under R.C. 2907.01(A). Further testimony included explicit descriptions of the sex acts she accused her husband of forcing on her. Justice Shanahan stated the descriptions of the acts “fall squarely within the law’s meaning of sexual conduct.”

“There is nothing to suggest that the ubiquitous phrase would mean something different on her subsequent use of it or a similar phrase. The State therefore met its burden of proving sexual conduct on all three counts of rape,” she wrote.

Rocky Relationship Leads to Criminal Charges
Coker met a woman, identified in court records as “S.O.,” at a religious conference in Texas in 2014. The two kept in touch, and S.O. made it clear she would not have sex with Coker unless they were married. The two married several months later and then moved to Rossford in Wood County in 2016.

At some point in their marriage, Coker demanded sex more frequently than S.O. wanted. She testified that in Coker’s view, as his wife, she had to submit to having sex with him regardless of her desire. A pattern emerged in their marriage, in which the two would have “date night,” which would involve dinner and then returning home, where they would sometimes drink alcohol or smoke marijuana. S.O. said they would then “have sex,” and afterward, there would be times she would fall asleep only to be woken by Coker attempting to have nonconsensual sex with her. In other instances, he would force her to have more sex than she wanted.

The pattern of unwanted sexual conduct continued for years, and in June 2020, S.O. returned to Texas and pursued a divorce. She obtained a protection order against Coker, and he was indicted on three counts of rape.

Each count covered a specific time period, with one being on S.O.’s birthday in January 2019. The second count covered April to September 2019, and the third from January to June 2020.

Jury Heard Specifics About Couple’s Sexual Relationship
During the trial , the Wood County Prosecutor’s Office questioned S.O. about the couple’s sex life, particularly about the “date nights.” S.O. testified that when she said “having sex,” that included her husband penetrating her vagina with his penis. During her testimony, she referenced each period in the indictment and noted the instances in which Coker was having sex with her without her consent. She stated they had sex during those three time periods, but she did not explicitly describe penetration.

After the prosecution presented its case, Coker’s attorney asked the trial court to acquit Coker of all charges . The court denied his motions , and the jury convicted Coker on all three counts.

Coker appealed his conviction to the Sixth District, claiming there was not sufficient evidence to convict him. The Sixth District agreed, finding S.O.’s testimony did give an initial description of penetration and oral sex that would constitute sexual conduct. However, she did not relate the acts that constitute sexual conduct to the specific periods noted in the indictments. The Sixth District ruled it was insufficient to use general terms such as “having sex,” “sexual activity,” “being intimate,” and “sexual encounters” to prove Coker engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct with S.O.

Based on the argument that there was insufficient evidence, the Sixth District vacated Coker’s convictions and did not consider his other legal arguments challenging his convictions.

The prosecutor appealed the Sixth District’s decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Supreme Court Analyzed Testimony Requirements
Justice Shanahan explained that Coker challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against him. When an appeals court reviews a sufficiency claim, the court must consider “whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Under Ohio law, rape is defined as “engaging in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.” The definition of sexual conduct includes “vaginal intercourse.” The law also states that “penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.”

The opinion stated the only issue before the Supreme Court was whether there was sufficient evidence of sexual conduct between S.O. and Coker.

During the trial, S.O. described sex acts during the periods charged in the indictment, clarifying times when the couple had sex without her consent. The Court noted in its 1991 State v. Jenks decision, it found in a rape case that inferences about sexual conduct can be drawn against the accused when evidence in the records support the claims.

The trial court correctly evaluated S.O.’s testimony in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the Court found. In contrast, the Sixth District incorrectly refused to draw inferences against Coker when S.O. used terms such as “sexual activity” and did not evaluate S.O.’s testimony in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

“After S.O. testified that ‘have sex’ meant vaginal intercourse and penetration, she did not need to reaffirm that ‘have sex’ included penetration every time the phrase or a similar phrase was used,” the opinion stated.

When using the correct standard to view the evidence, the Court stated there was sufficient evidence of sexual conduct to convict Coker on all three rape counts.

The Court remanded the case to the Sixth District to consider Coker’s other legal arguments.

2024-0087. State v. Coker, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2051.

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.