LISBON — The Seventh District Court of Appeals recently upheld the conviction of a West Virginia man sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting a child beginning when she was 10 years old in 2017.

Stetson Yost, 35, Chester, made several claims of error when he filed the appeal last year, but the appellate court disagreed with all of them, overruling the arguments of his appellate defense counsel, John Laczko, and affirming the judgment of the trial court, Columbiana County Common Pleas Court Judge Scott Washam.

Washam sentenced Yost to the mandatory life sentence for first-degree felony rape plus an additional five years for gross sexual imposition, a third-degree felony. A jury found him guilty in March 2024 of both charges and noted both offenses involved a child under 13 years old.

He was also designated a Tier III sex offender, requiring him to register his address with law enforcement for the rest of his life if he’s ever released from prison.

Yost was indicted in January 2023 for the charges that alleged he had sexual conduct and sexual contact with the child, which occurred from April 3, 2017 through Dec. 31, 2019 beginning when the child was 10 years old.

Yost had maintained his innocence throughout the trial and during his testimony denied the sexual assaults. The victim also testified live in front of the jury.

After the appellate court issued it’s ruling last month, Laczko asked for the appointment of appellate counsel, indicating that Yost wanted to appeal the case further, to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals addressed four errors claimed by Yost’s counsel, including allegations that: the trial court erred by allowing hearsay testimony from a friend of the victim which was prejudicial to the defendant; by allowing expert witnesses (a case worker and nurse practitioner) to give their opinion on the “veracity” of the victim’s testimony; he received ineffective trial counsel throughout the case; and that he was denied his rights due to the conviction being against the manifest weight of the evidence.

He also claimed the “jury’s verdict was inconsistent with the evidence and testimony at trial.”

One by one, the appellate court shot down the arguments. The court noted that it could be reasonably concluded that the testimony of the victim’s friend about what the victim said was not hearsay because “it presented a prior consistent statement by the victim.”

The court concluded there was no error by the court by allowing the expert testimony, noting there was no objection to this testimony during the trial by the defense counsel.

The claim of ineffective counsel was also overruled. The defendant had requested new counsel a week before the trial, but the trial court overruled the request. The appellate court noted the trial counsel had been the defendant’s attorney in this case for over a year with no concerns voiced by the defendant.

As for the last claim about insufficient evidence or the jury’s verdict being against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court recounted the victim’s testimony about what happened, overruling the argument of insufficiency of evidence.

Looking at the weight of the evidence, the court ruled that “nothing about the victim’s testimony is unbelievable. The jury could easily find the victim’s testimony was credible and find the appellant’s (defendant’s) testimony lacked credibility.”