The Supreme Court of Ohio has upheld the conviction of Mark Gasper for the rape of a 32-year-old woman with cerebral palsy and intellectual disabilities. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that individuals with permanent mental conditions can be considered "substantially impaired" under state rape laws. Gasper was initially charged in 2019 with seven counts of rape but was found guilty on one count by a Hamilton County Common Pleas Court jury.
Gasper's appeal contended that the trial judge did not properly instruct the jury, suggesting that they concluded impairment based on medication effects rather than permanent mental condition. Justice Patrick F. Fischer wrote for the court, stating that instructions were based on precedent from a 1987 decision which allows substantial impairment to be determined by evidence of a permanent mental condition.
The First District Court of Appeals' decision to uphold Gasper's conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, and Jennifer Brunner, along with Sixth District Court of Appeals Judge Charles E. Sulek. Justice Joseph T. Deters did not participate.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Donnelly noted that Gasper did not challenge whether failure to explain potential medication effects violated his right to a fair trial. The issue was not addressed because it wasn't raised as part of Gasper's appeal regarding jury instructions.
Gasper worked as an in-home nurse for a family with disabled children and had a long-term sexual relationship with the adult sister identified as "K.W." He faced charges under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) for engaging in sexual conduct with someone whose ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired due to mental or physical conditions.
During trial deliberations, jurors questioned if medication should factor into assessing mental condition; however, they were instructed to rely on given guidelines without further clarification from the judge.
Justice Fischer clarified that substantial impairment refers to any present reduction in abilities at offense time and does not distinguish between temporary or permanent impairments unless specifically argued during prosecution or defense proceedings.
###