State v. Marshall

Citations: 2017 Ohio 9269; 103 N.E.3d 61Docket: CA2016-11-031

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; December 27, 2017; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jeremy Marshall appealed his domestic violence conviction from the Madison County Municipal Court, where he was found guilty of a fourth-degree misdemeanor after an incident with his mother. The complaint stemmed from a 9-1-1 call made by Marshall, alleging that his mother had kicked him. However, the responding deputy identified Marshall as the primary aggressor, leading to his arrest. During the bench trial, testimonies were provided by Marshall's mother, sister, and the arresting deputy.

Marshall raised four assignments of error on appeal, focusing primarily on the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting his conviction. He contended that the prosecution did not prove he committed a threatening act or that his mother believed he would cause her harm. Specifically, he argued that the court's finding that his mother did not fear him undermined the conviction's basis.

The appellate court outlined the standards for evaluating sufficiency and weight of evidence. To assess sufficiency, it considers if the evidence, when viewed favorably toward the prosecution, could convince a reasonable person of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast, a manifest weight challenge involves a thorough examination of the entire record to determine if the evidence heavily favors acquittal. The court emphasized that it would only reverse a conviction based on manifest weight in extraordinary circumstances, affirming that a conviction's support by manifest weight also resolves sufficiency issues in favor of the prosecution. Ultimately, the court affirmed Marshall's conviction.

Marshall was convicted of domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(C), which prohibits causing a family member to believe they will face imminent physical harm through threats of force. According to R.C. 2901.01(A)(3), physical harm encompasses any injury or physiological impairment. The prosecution needed to demonstrate that the victim, Kathleen, believed she was in imminent danger at the time of the incident. Kathleen testified that she was at her daughter Beth Ann's home on April 29, 2016, where Marshall lived. Tensions escalated due to a dispute between Marshall and Beth Ann over his living situation. During this conflict, Marshall threatened suicide and entered the locked bedroom where Kathleen and others had sought refuge, aggressively confronting Kathleen. He physically forced her onto the bed, causing her fear of potential harm. Kathleen attempted to protect herself and her grandson during the altercation. Although there was conflicting testimony regarding whether Marshall held scissors during this encounter, the court concluded that he did not, yet still found sufficient evidence of his intimidating behavior to uphold the conviction. The court determined that a rational factfinder could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Marshall's actions were intended to intimidate Kathleen, affirming the trial court's decision.

The court affirms that the state met its burden of proof regarding Kathleen's belief that Marshall intended to cause her physical harm, emphasizing that fear is not a required element under R.C. 2919.25(C). Kathleen's testimony indicated she anticipated physical harm, supported by her defensive actions. The court overrules Marshall's third and fourth assignments of error.

In addressing Marshall's first assignment of error, the court rejects his argument that threats of force must be verbal. Citing a relevant case, State v. Rhoads, the court establishes that nonverbal conduct can indeed constitute a threat of force under R.C. 2919.25(C). The court asserts that the common definition of "threat" encompasses nonverbal indications of harm, and thus, Marshall's claim lacks logical support.

In his second assignment of error, Marshall contends that he cannot be considered a "family or household member" as he allegedly did not make a verbal threat against Kathleen. The court rebuffs this argument, reiterating that the threat was directed at Kathleen, his mother, satisfying the statutory definition. The court ultimately overrules both of Marshall's assignments of error and affirms the judgment.