From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Saffell

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Tuscarawas County
Jun 18, 2002
Case No. 2001 AP 10 0092 (Ohio Ct. App. Jun. 18, 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 2001 AP 10 0092.

Decided June 18, 2002.

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court, Case No. 00 CRB 8678.

For Plaintiff-Appellee, KENNETH R. WELCH, Village Solicitor, 201 N. Main Street, Uhrichsville, Ohio 44683.

For Defendant-Appellant, GERALD A. LATANICH, Joint County Public Defender Office, 153 North Broadway, New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663.


OPINION


{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court wherein appellant was convicted in a bench trial of Domestic Violence prohibited by R.C. § 2919.25(A).

{¶ 2} This charge emanated from assertions by Tammy Saffell, daughter of appellant, that he struck her.

{¶ 3} The sole Assignment of Error is:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I.

{¶ 4} "THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT THE DEFENDANT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE."

{¶ 5} Revised Code § 2919.25(A) provides:

(A) No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member.

{¶ 6} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State v. Jenks (1991) 61 Ohio St.3d 259. The weight to be given evidence and the determination of credibility of witnesses are issues for the trier of fact, not the reviewing court. State v. Jamison (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 182, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881.

{¶ 7} Appellant, in support directs this court to certain claims of inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses and in the absence of specific medical testimony as to the causation and location of certain marks on Tammy Saffell.

{¶ 8} Appellant, in his brief, places emphasis on the lack of threats from appellant. However, R.C. § 2919.25(A) does not require threats.

{¶ 9} Essentially, the trier of the facts has the principle responsibility for determining the credibility of the witnesses and the relative weight attributable to their testimony. State v. Jamison (1990), 40 Ohio St.3d 182, certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 881.

{¶ 10} We find that the trial court had sufficient evidence, notwithstanding certain variations, based upon the accepted credibility of the witnesses to arrive at the guilt of appellant.

{¶ 11} The Assignment of Error is denied.

{¶ 12} The decision of the Tuscarawas County Court is affirmed.

By: BOGGINS, J. HOFFMAN, P.J. and EDWARDS, J. concur.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the decision of the Tuscarawas County Court is affirmed. Costs assessed to appellant.


Summaries of

State v. Saffell

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Tuscarawas County
Jun 18, 2002
Case No. 2001 AP 10 0092 (Ohio Ct. App. Jun. 18, 2002)
Case details for

State v. Saffell

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OHIO/VILLAGE OF DENNISON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM SAFFELL…

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Tuscarawas County

Date published: Jun 18, 2002

Citations

Case No. 2001 AP 10 0092 (Ohio Ct. App. Jun. 18, 2002)