In State v. Economo (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 56, the only evidence corroborating any element of the offense was that the alleged victim promptly reported the incident to the authorities, appeared to be upset, and did not want to be alone with the alleged perpetrator of the offense. These circumstances were deemed to constitute sufficient corroboration. In the case before us, M. G. reported the alleged offense within three hours of its occurrence to appropriate authorities, and appeared to be upset. Both of these circumstances are similar to the circumstances deemed to constitute sufficient corroboration in State v. Economo, supra. The fact at issue in Economo was whether the sexual contact concerning which the victim testified had taken place. The State introduced other evidence in the form of the defendant doctor's office records to show that he and the victim had an appointment that day. The victim's sister also testified and said that when the victim left the doctor's examining room she was "on the verge of crying." These circumstances were sufficient to corroborate the victim's testimony that the doctor engaged in sexual conduct during his examination of her. The fact that such conduct occurred in the course of a doctor/patient relationship supported an independent inference that the defendant knew it was unwelcome to the victim/patient or was reckless in that regard. R.C. 2901.01(A). Economo does not stand for the proposition that R.C. 2907.06(B) is satisfied when corroborating evidence is offered concerning any one element of an alleged R.C. 2907.06(A)(1) Sexual Imposition offense. Economo instead holds that any one article of extrinsic evidence need not corroborate every statutory element of the offense. The terms in which that holding is expressed are unfortunately obscure, but the alternative meaning the majority attaches to those terms voids the requirement for criminal liability that R.C. 2907.06(B) imposes. The Court should not read the holding in Economo as doing that when the majority in that case did not expressly state that intention. In Economo, the corroborating evidence permitted an inference that the sexual contact the victim described in her testimony had occurred, and the fact that it occurred in the course of a doctor/patient relationship supported another, independent inference that the defendant doctor knew the sexual contact was unwelcome or was reckless in that regard. R.C.2907.06(A)(1). The Ohio Supreme Court determined the type of evidence that satisfies the corroboration requirement of R.C. 2907.06(B) in order for a defendant to be convicted of sexual imposition. In so holding, the court concluded that R.C. 2907.06(B) "does not mandate proof of the facts which are the very substance of the crime charged," nor does the corroborating evidence need to be independently sufficient to convict the accused, or even go to every essential element of the crime. State v. Menke, Butler App. No. CA2002-01-021, 2003 Ohio 77, P25; Economo at 59- 60. Instead, slight circumstances or evidence that tends to support the victim's testimony is satisfactory. Economo at 60. Therefore, corroborating evidence is not an element of the offense of sexual imposition, but merely an ancillary evidential requirement. Id. at 60-62.