Opinion
WD-21-036
11-19-2021
State of Ohio/City of Perrysburg Appellee v. Styles McAtee Appellant
Chynna L. Fifer, City of Perrysburg Prosecutor, for appellee. Dan M. Weiss, for appellant.
Trial Court Nos. CRB2001244
Chynna L. Fifer, City of Perrysburg Prosecutor, for appellee.
Dan M. Weiss, for appellant.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
DUHART, J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on the appeal filed by appellant, Styles McAtee, from the May 17, 2021 judgment of the Perrysburg Municipal Court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth two assignments of error:
1. The evidence presented at trial was insufficient for the court to deny appellant's Crim.R. 29(A) motion and the jury to find appellant guilty.
2. The jury's guilty decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Background
{¶ 3} On November 17, 2020, appellant's girlfriend, the victim, called 911 and reported appellant had hit her. The victim then said she was sorry, she had the wrong number and she hung up. The 911 operator determined the victim's location and dispatched police. Two police officers arrived at the Travel Inn, located in Lake Township, Wood County, Ohio, and encountered appellant and the victim. Following questioning, appellant was arrested for domestic violence.
{¶ 4} A jury trial was held on April 14, 2021, and appellant was found guilty of violating R.C. 2919.25(A), a first degree misdemeanor. On May 13, 2021, appellant was sentenced to 180 days in jail, with 150 days suspended, fined $500.00, placed on 3 years of probation, and ordered to have no contact with the victim. Appellant appealed.
Trial
{¶ 5} The state called three witnesses. The first witness was the responding officer, Jordan Grosjean, who testified to the following. He has been a police officer with Lake Township for just under two and a half years, and he estimated he goes to domestic-type situations five to ten times a month. On November 17, 2020, he was working and received a dispatch, at around 6:00 p.m., of a domestic violence in progress at the Travel Inn. The term "in progress" means violence is occurring or still has a high probability that it is going to occur.
{¶ 6} When Officer Grosjean arrived at the Travel Inn, a male was at the doorway, exiting the room to which the officer was dispatched; that male was appellant. Sergeant Mick Lento arrived very shortly thereafter. Officer Grosjean talked to appellant while the sergeant went inside with the victim. As soon as the officer walked up to appellant, appellant stated I never touched her, I never hit her. Appellant said he threw things and broke some things, including his own television, but he never hit her or touched her. Appellant also said he and the victim were arguing over video games, the cell phone and her work. The officer described appellant as still heated from the argument. Appellant was placed in the police car, not handcuffed, while the officer went into the room with the sergeant and the victim.
{¶ 7} In the motel room, it was dark as there was only one light working, so the officer used his flashlight to see a broken vase, coffee grounds everywhere, a plastic coffee container on the floor and a 65-inch television which "was absolutely smashed." The sergeant approached Officer Grosjean and said from what he, the sergeant, gathered, it was all verbal. The officer shined his flashlight on the victim and saw she had "a pretty nice swelling, black eye developing on her -- her left eye. She had scratch marks on the opposite side of her neck, a red cheek." The officer asked the victim how her injuries happened and she said in the heat of the argument, appellant "threw a Folgers plastic container off [of] the TV, and then that plastic container bounced off [of] the TV and hit her in the face on the opposite side of the room."
{¶ 8} The officer went outside and called dispatch, who played the 911 call for him, in which the victim said appellant hit her. The officer stated at that point "is when we changed it into a domestic violence." The recording of the 911 call was played for the jury in its entirety during the officer's testimony. On the 911 call, the female caller stated she was at the Travel Inn and "[m]y boyfriend hit me." The 911 operator asked, "Are you guys separated right now?" The caller replied, "No, he's still here. He won't leave." The 911 operator asked "Are you injured?" The caller responded, "Yes. He fucking hit me pretty badly." Thereafter, the caller apologized numerous times, said she had the wrong number several times, and hung up.
{¶ 9} After Officer Grosjean heard the 911 call, which corroborated the injuries that he saw on the victim's face, and based on his training and experience, the officer placed appellant under arrest for domestic violence.
{¶ 10} The officer recalled Sergeant Lento took photographs at the scene. The officer was shown four photographs, and he identified the victim as the person in the photographs and described the injuries on the victim which were depicted in the photographs. The defense showed the officer three photographs which portrayed the motel room, including the damaged television, a broken lamp and coffee grounds. The officer agreed those pictures tended to corroborate that there had been items thrown and spilled in the room.
{¶ 11} Sergeant Lento was the second witness, and he testified to the following. He has been a police officer with Lake Township for 25 years, and has been in law enforcement for almost 30 years. He has had continual training regarding domestic violence cases, he was in the detective bureau for 9 years, and he investigated several domestic violence cases. The sergeant was working on November 17, 2020, when he responded to a domestic violence call, at 6:23 p.m. When he arrived at the location, Officer Grosjean was already there with the suspect, appellant.
{¶ 12} The sergeant went inside the motel room to speak with the victim while the officer spoke with appellant. In the room, there was "very, very poor lighting," as there was only one light above the sink were the bathroom was. He saw "a TV that was broken and stuff all over the floor. There was coffee all over the floor, clothes scattered around." He also saw a lamp that was knocked over. It appeared the couple lived at the motel.
{¶ 13} Sergeant Lento talked to the victim and she said it was just a verbal argument and there were no threats. She mentioned they were fighting because she was upset that she was the only one working. She said she just wanted appellant out of there for the night and she explained appellant's mother was on the way to pick him up. As the sergeant was speaking with the victim, she "had her head down and kept looking away when I was talking to her so just looked at what lighting was there. I didn't see any injuries. She was telling me it was all verbal. I was just taking her word that it was all verbal."
{¶ 14} The sergeant was then joined by Officer Grosjean, who conveyed "his side of the story." The officer shined his flashlight on the victim's face. The sergeant was surprised to see injuries because the victim said there were not any. The sergeant described "[s]ome bruising and redness and swelling to -- it would be her left cheek, a little tiny cut on her lip, and she had some red marks on this -- on the right side of her neck." Sergeant Lento had taken photographs at the scene. He was shown three photographs, which revealed the injuries on the victim.
{¶ 15} After the sergeant saw the victim's injuries, he asked her what happened and she changed her story from nothing happened to appellant threw a coffee can and it bounced off of the television and hit her. She said it was an accident. Officer Grosjean went outside, called dispatch and listened to the 911 call. The officer then came back inside and reported to the sergeant that, on the 911 call, appellant had hit her pretty badly. Based on the 911 call and the victim's visible injuries, the sergeant stated "that changes the whole scenario * * * we're going to make an arrest."
{¶ 16} The last witness called by the state was the victim. She testified she has been in a relationship with appellant for about a year, and they lived together for a couple of months at the Travel Inn. She is currently in a relationship with appellant, she loves him and wants to continue the relationship. She is worried about him being convicted of domestic violence because he is trying to get his life back together and is working.
{¶ 17} She recalled making a 911 call on November 17, 2020, but did not remember why. She said "I was still angry and not in the right -- in my mind and head of that night." The 911 call was played. The victim identified her voice on the call, but said she was still upset and "I wasn't really there. I was lost and confused. I was not in the right kind of mind. I need some counseling to help -- to help myself." The victim said she was mad when she called 911 because she did not mean to call.
{¶ 18} The victim testified she did not remember what she and appellant were arguing about on that night, but the argument did not get bad. She said she was throwing stuff around because she was mad, and appellant did not throw stuff. The victim stated she broke the television, there was a lamp that was broken, a candleholder got thrown or knocked off and there was coffee everywhere, which she had thrown.
{¶ 19} At the conclusion of the state's case, appellant made a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. The trial court denied the motion.
First Assignment of Error
{¶ 20} Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his Crim.R. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. He contends the state presented internally inconsistent evidence, which created reasonable doubt. He also asserts the state's evidence required the jury to accept that the victim lied to the police and the jury, and the only truthful statement the victim made was on the 911 call. Appellant claims that at the scene of the incident and at trial, the victim said appellant did not strike her. Appellant further submits the state presented no independent evidence that the victim's injury met the definition of knowingly, as defined by the Ohio Revised Code. Appellant maintains the jury could not have determined there was sufficient evidence to find all of the elements of domestic violence beyond a reasonable doubt, and convict him.
Law
{¶ 21} Crim.R. 29(A) provides:
The court on motion of a defendant * * * after the evidence on either side is closed, shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment * * * if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses.
{¶ 22} Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard which tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally adequate to support a jury verdict as to all elements of the crime. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). The proper analysis under a sufficiency of the evidence standard is "'whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d 569, 576, 660 N.E.2d 724 (1996), quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 23} The domestic violence statute, R.C. 2919.25(A) provides "[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member." R.C. 2901.22(B) states "[a] person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature." And, "'[p]hysical harm to persons' means any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration." R.C. 2901.01(A)(3).
Analysis
{¶ 24} Upon review, appellant was charged with domestic violence, which involves knowingly causing physical harm to a household member. R.C. 2919.25(A). Appellant does not dispute that the victim was a household member. Regarding the elements of knowingly causing and physical harm, at trial, the state presented: the 911 call in which the victim stated appellant "fucking hit me pretty badly"; the testimony of Officer Grosjean and Sergeant Lento; and the photographs depicting injuries on the victim's face and neck.
{¶ 25} Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the state, we find that any rational trier of fact could have found each of the elements of domestic violence proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the trial court did not err in denying appellant's Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is not well-taken.
Second Assignment of Error
{¶ 26} Appellant assets the jury's guilty verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. He contends the victim's contradictory testimony and the lack of corroborating evidence creates reasonable doubt as to whether appellant knowingly hurt the victim. He argues that starting with the victim's first interaction with police, outside of appellant's presence, and continuing through her trial testimony, the victim has denied that appellant struck her or knowingly caused her physical harm. Appellant submits the state failed to prove that he committed domestic violence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury clearly lost its way by finding him guilty despite the victim's statements to the police and trial testimony.
Law
{¶ 27} Weight of the evidence concerns
"the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other. It indicates clearly to the jury that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled to their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the greater amount of credible evidence sustains the issue which is to be established before them. Weight is not a question of mathematics, but depends on its effect in inducing belief." (Citation omitted.) Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541.
{¶ 28} When analyzing a manifest weight of the evidence claim,
"[t]he court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered." (Citation omitted.) Id.
{¶ 29} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court sits as a "thirteenth juror." Id. We reverse a conviction on manifest weight grounds for only the most "'exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.'" (Citation omitted.) Id.
Analysis
{¶ 30} A review of the entire record shows there was credible evidence, including the 911 call, the testimony of law enforcement officers and the photographs, to support appellant's conviction for domestic violence, and we cannot find the evidence weighed heavily against the conviction, or that a manifest miscarriage of justice occurred. Given the conflicting evidence, this was not the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. Accordingly, we find appellant's second assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 31} The judgment of the Perrysburg Municipal Court is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.LocApp.R. 4.
Christine E. Mayle, J., Gene A. Zmuda, P.J., Myron C. Duhart, J., CONCURS.