43
DNA evidence to be presented in 2003 rape case
YOUNGSTOWN
A 42-year-old man is on trial in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court charged with crimes he is accused of committing in 2003, and DNA evidence will be the focal point to prove his guilt, prosecutors say.
Sammie Smith, who lists the Mahoning County jail as his address, is charged with burglary, three counts of rape, two counts of kidnapping and two counts of robbery.
He is on trial in the courtroom of Judge Maureen Sweeney.
There had been repeat violent and sexual-offender specifications added to those charges, but those specifications were dropped because the past offenses were committed more than 10 years before specifications legally were permissible.
According to Vindicator files, Smith was convicted of kidnapping, rape and aggravated robbery in 1986. He was sentenced to a prison term of six to 25 years with nine years mandatory.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys gave opening statements to the jury Tuesday afternoon.
Dawn Cantalamessa, an assistant county prosecutor, told jurors that in October 2003, Smith broke into the home of a Hilton Avenue woman and her 2-year-old son. She said the woman awoke to find Smith standing over her in her bedroom.
Cantalamessa said Smith dragged the woman to another room of the South Side house, put a bandanna she was wearing over her eyes, threatened to kill her and forced her to perform a sex act on him.
Cantalamessa said Smith forced the woman into other rooms of the house looking for money, then forced her to engage in sex with him. He then made her wash herself before he left the house, she said.
“She did not want this. She did not ask for it, but she wasn’t going to run out of the house and leave him there with her son,” Cantalamessa said.
Cantalamessa told the jury the woman went to the hospital for a rape kit, but the case went cold after that until 2008, when DNA from the rape kit was matched to Smith and he was ultimately arrested.
Atty. J. Gerald Ingram, representing Smith, told the jurors there is no doubt the victim was assaulted, but the case against his client is more about “science run amok” than actual evidence.
He said there are no witnesses to come forward and identify his client, and other evidence is flawed and not worthy of belief.
Ingram said the defense takes issue with the collection and testing of the DNA and other evidence he says would have influenced the findings in the case but was ignored.
He said challenges will be made to the reliability of the state’s evidence throughout the trial showing the state did not meet its burden of proof.