By ED RUNYAN

Staff writer

YOUNGSTOWN — An appeal in the Sergio Gonzalez III rape case has produced a surprising outcome: Certain evidence should not have been permitted at Gonzalez’s trial last July, but there was so much other evidence, it didn’t matter, the majority opinion of the court states.

Gonzalez, now 24, was convicted at trial in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court on two counts of rape involving a child who sometimes stayed at the foster home where Gonzalez lived in Youngstown. The rapes occurred in early 2018 when the girl was under 13 and Gonzalez was 17, according to court documents. Gonzalez is serving a 10-years-to-life prison sentence.

Mark Lavelle, a different attorney from the one who represented Gonzalez in his trial, appealed Gonzalez’s convictions.

The 7th District Court of Appeals ruled that Lavelle was right about one thing — Judge John Durkin should not have allowed testimony from Gonzalez’s grandmother, Katheline Gonzalez, regarding sexual activity Sergio Gonzalez engaged in with two foster children in Katheline Gonzalez’s care while Sergio Gonzalez lived there.

But the appeals panel found that it was not necessary to overturn Gonzalez’s convictions and sentence because “the remaining evidence in the record constitutes overwhelming evidence of (Gonzalez’s) guilt.” Katheline Gonzalez was Sergio Gonzalez’s foster mother, as well as his grandmother. She also was foster parent to two of Sergio Gonzalez’s siblings. They lived at her East Side home.

Durkin allowed the testimony from Katheline Gonzalez about the sexual relationships Sergio Gonzalez had with the two foster children, which prosecutors sought to contradict Katheline Gonzalez’s earlier testimony that she ran a “safe house.”

‘TAILORED’ EVIDENCE

The appeals panel ruled that Judge Durkin could have “tailored” the evidence to admit testimony regarding the sexual relationships without identifying Sergio Gonzalez as a participant.

“The tailored evidence would have served its limited purpose — to contradict (Katheline Gonzalez’s) direct testimony — without violating (Sergio Gonzalez’s) statutory right” not to be identified under Ohio’s rape shield law, the ruling states.

The appeals panel also ruled that Durkin should have issued a “limiting instruction” to the jury regarding Katheline Gonzalez’s testimony about her grandson’s sexual relationships.

Such an instruction would have advised the jury to consider Katheline Gonzalez’s testimony about the relationships “solely for the purpose of” challenging her earlier testimony. It would have prohibited the jury from considering Sergio Gonzalez’s sexual relationships with the foster girls as evidence of his guilt of the rape charges, the ruling states.

The ruling adds that prosecutors “exacerbated the problem during its closing argument. The state specifically urged the jury to engage in the prohibited use of (Katheline Gonzalez’s) testimony” regarding the relationships as a way to judge Sergio Gonzalez’s character, the ruling states.

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

Despite the errors, however, the appeals panel of judges Katelyn Dickey and Cheryl Waite found several types of evidence from the trial, including the testimony of the victim, that provided sufficient evidence to convict Sergio Gonzalez of the rapes, the ruling stated.

The victim’s testimony was “compelling,” the ruling states. Furthermore, it was “supported” by Tamara LeFlore, a qualified mental health specialist, who testified to the reasons the victim did not disclose the rapes until two years later. One reason was that she “did not have the courage to tell” her mother because she was embarrassed, the ruling states.

In conclusion, the judge erred in “admitting (Katheline Gonzalez’s) testimony regarding (Sergio Gonzalez’s) sexual relationships with” two foster children because the evidentiary value of that information “was outweighed by its inflammatory nature, the appeals court ruled.

“Further, no effort was made to limit the prejudicial impact of the testimony. Nonetheless, we find the remaining evidence in the record constitutes overwhelming evidence of (Sergio Gonzalez’s) guilt,” the ruling states.

Judge Mark Hanni dissented from the majority opinion, stating, “I would find that the admission of the grandmother’s testimony regarding (Sergio Gonzalez’s) sexual activity with two foster children in her house was so highly prejudicial to (Sergio Gonzalez) that it could not constitute harmless error as the majority concludes. I would reverse (Sergio Gonzalez’s) conviction and remand the matter for a new trial.”

EARLIER APPEALS RULING

The 7th District Court of Appeals also ruled against Sergio Gonzalez in 2022 when the Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office appealed a decision by Judge Theresa Dellick of Mahoning County Juvenile Court to keep Gonzalez’s case in juvenile court rather than forward it to the adult-level common pleas court.