Judicial interventions and similar fact ruling disclosed no reversible error.
The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault against two complainants and uttering a threat, arguing trial unfairness arising from repeated judicial interventions and improper reliance on cross-count similar fact evidence.
The court held that the interventions, viewed individually and cumulatively, were aimed largely at fairness and efficiency and would not cause a reasonable observer to perceive bias or alignment with the prosecution.
Applying the similar fact evidence framework, the court found the trial judge was entitled to conclude that the similarities between the two assaults strongly rebutted coincidence and supported the complainants' evidence on the central issue of consent.
The appeal was dismissed.
OCACourt of AppealJan 5, 2026
