State v. Woodson

Citation: 2022 Ohio 2528Docket: L-21-1068

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; July 22, 2022; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Asia Woodson appeals her December 29, 2021 sentencing by the Toledo Municipal Court for assault, aggravated menacing, and criminal damaging. The charges, filed on December 22, 2019, by Officer Leonard Beck, included one count of assault (R.C. 2903.13(A)), five counts of aggravated menacing (R.C. 2903.21(A)), and one count of criminal damaging (R.C. 2909.06). The trial, held on October 7, 2020, and March 10, 2021, featured testimony from Beck and four victims, alongside Woodson's own testimony. 

The incidents occurred after a Christmas party hosted by victims C.G. and Ale.C. C.G. testified that she initially saw a shadow outside and later recognized Woodson, who was attempting to enter the home. C.G. instructed Woodson to leave, but instead, Woodson engaged in a physical altercation, hitting C.G. in the face, causing swelling. Following this, Woodson allegedly drove her car towards the group outside, prompting them to evade her vehicle. C.G. reported that Woodson subsequently damaged her car by smashing into it, resulting in significant damage. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.

On the second day of trial, C.G. altered her previous testimony regarding the events at a party, stating she first heard 'commotion' while in bed and did not investigate until the noise escalated. Upon going outside, she observed Asia Woodson attempting to enter the house. C.G. tried to de-escalate the situation by encouraging Ale.C. to leave, but when Woodson refused to depart, calls were made to the Toledo Police. During this time, Woodson struck C.G. in the face with a closed fist, resulting in swelling but no bruising. 

C.G. described her location during the altercation, noting she was on the second step of her porch when struck. Following this, her family and friends confronted Woodson, prompting her to retreat to her car parked on the street. Woodson then drove her vehicle towards the group, causing C.G. to fear for her safety; she moved out of the way to avoid being hit. Afterward, Woodson collided with C.G.’s car, causing significant damage, including smashing the back in and damaging the garage door. C.G. clarified that despite the darkness, the area was well-lit, allowing her to see the events clearly.

On cross-examination, C.G. confirmed that the first person she saw outside was Ale.C., who was crying, and acknowledged other guests had seen someone looking in the front window earlier but she did not directly observe this. C.G. initially told Ale.C. to manage her situation, but after Ale.C. expressed fear, C.G. confronted Woodson, who was at the bottom of the steps. C.G. stated she repeatedly asked Woodson to leave before the police were called and recounted Woodson's confusing driving behavior, which included driving up on the sidewalk and hitting C.G.’s car before departing.

Ale.C. also testified, confirming she hosted a Christmas gathering on December 22, 2019, and indicated that Woodson was the only uninvited guest at the event.

Ale.C. instructed Woodson to leave her house due to disruptive behavior, as Woodson was arguing and attempting to fight. Ale.C. and her aunts tried to escort Woodson away, and C.G., who had been asleep, joined them in urging Woodson to leave. During this confrontation, Woodson punched C.G. in the face. After Woodson retreated to her car, Ale.C. called the police multiple times, concerned for their safety. Woodson then drove her car towards Ale.C., C.G., D.B., and B.H., prompting them to run to avoid being hit. Woodson later damaged C.G.’s car by crashing into it, causing significant damage and rendering the garage door inoperable. 

On cross-examination, Ale.C. detailed the timeline of the incident, noting the party began around 8:00 p.m. and the conflict occurred around 12:30 or 1:00 a.m. Alcohol was being consumed, and while she initially did not know if Woodson had been invited, she eventually clarified that Woodson appeared while Ale.C. was saying goodbye to guests. Although Woodson was described as aggressive and attempting to enter the house, she did not physically touch the door. Ale.C. confirmed she called the police immediately upon recognizing Woodson's inappropriate presence and escalating verbal altercation.

B.H., another witness, corroborated that Woodson appeared outside the house and was asked to leave, but refused to do so. She testified that after C.G. came out and told Woodson to leave, Woodson and C.G. were face-to-face when Woodson hit C.G. B.H. confirmed that C.G. did not instigate the physical confrontation with Woodson prior to being hit.

Woodson, after hitting C.G. with her car, drove toward a house where a party was taking place. B.H. observed Woodson initially appearing to leave, but instead, she backed up and collided with a parked car in the driveway. Following this, Woodson attempted to drive at B.H. and others on the sidewalk, causing B.H. to fear for her safety. Woodson subsequently drove away. B.H. arrived at the party around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. and noted that alcohol was served. She was unaware of any prior conflict between Woodson and Ale.C. until the night of the party. After B.H.’s sister spotted Woodson outside, they looked for her but assumed she had left. However, Woodson later reappeared, prompting B.H. and others to tell her that Ale.C. did not want to talk and that she needed to leave. Woodson persisted in asking Ale.C. to come outside, leading to emotional distress for Ale.C. C.G. eventually emerged to ask Woodson to leave, after which Woodson physically assaulted C.G. B.H. did not witness any physical provocation from C.G. toward Woodson before the punch. Regarding Woodson's car, B.H. did not notice any damage due to the speed at which Woodson drove away after the collision. D.B., another party attendee, returned around midnight and noted a woman (Woodson) outside the house. During the party's conclusion, D.B. recalled an altercation of words between Woodson and Ale.C., with C.G. also instructing Woodson to leave. D.B. did not witness any physical confrontation during the incident.

D.B. recounted an incident involving Woodson, who drove aggressively toward a group on the sidewalk, attempting to hit them with her car. Although D.B. feared for her safety, she believed the altercation was not directed at her. Woodson chased C.G. in her vehicle, ultimately colliding with the rear of C.G.'s car after failing to catch her. D.B. described significant damage to C.G.'s vehicle, including the trunk opening and the rear being pushed into the garage. D.B. recorded a 29-second video of Woodson leaving the scene, although the driver was not clearly visible. The video revealed minimal front-end damage, with a bent front license plate. D.B. noted that C.G. was in the kitchen during both of her visits to the house that evening and had limited interaction with the partygoers. She confirmed that Woodson had an argument with Ale.C. before C.G. emerged and that all women present asked Woodson to leave.

Officer Beck’s testimony corroborated the events. Upon arrival, he was informed of aggressive driving and reported damage to C.G.’s car. He observed fresh tire marks and significant damage to C.G.'s vehicle, which had been pushed into the garage. The imprint of a license plate was visible on the rear bumper. When officers checked the license plate number, it was registered to Woodson, and they also found a hood emblem from Woodson's car at the scene. Witnesses identified Woodson as the perpetrator, prompting Beck to issue arrest warrants for her.

Beck testified on cross-examination that he did not see Woodson’s car before issuing warrants and did not conduct further investigation despite checking the house area. He noted Woodson’s address was across town, and time constraints prevented a wider search. Beck described fresh tire marks, indicating they appeared new and showed no signs of dirt or fading. He also reported that C.G. claimed to have been punched in the face, though Beck did not observe any visible injuries on Woodson. 

After the state's presentation, Woodson moved for acquittal under Crim. R. 29, which the trial court granted for the aggravated menacing charge involving Ale.C. but denied for other counts. Woodson then testified, explaining she was at work on December 22 when Ale.C. invited her to a Christmas party. After arriving at C.G. and Ale.C.'s home, Woodson was unable to reach Ale.C. due to a dead phone and attempted to gain entry by knocking and looking through windows. When she was eventually invited in by B.H.’s sister, Woodson declined, perceiving insincerity in the invitation. She opted to return to the front of the house for safety due to past issues with Ale.C. and her family. 

From the front, she observed the women inside being playful and loud. Upon their emergence, tensions escalated, particularly as C.G. instructed the group to leave, despite having observed their planning inside. During a brief argument between C.G. and Ale.C., Woodson attempted to communicate with Ale.C. and B.H.’s sister. However, B.H. confronted Woodson aggressively, leading her to retreat toward her car.

Woodson reported a violent encounter with C.G. while walking to her car, describing C.G. as aggressive, screaming, and physically attacking her. The altercation escalated when Ale.C. and others joined in, pulling Woodson’s hair and punching her. Despite a brief moment of physical engagement described as an "awkward silence," Woodson noted that she and C.G. did not fight extensively at that time. A man intervened to break up the fight. Following the incident, Woodson observed C.G. attempting to hit her with a car, which led Woodson to try to escape her own vehicle. C.G. smashed Woodson’s back window with a brick during this attempt. Woodson admitted to hitting the back of C.G.'s car while fleeing but did not report the incident to the police or seek medical attention despite experiencing distress. Testifying about the events, Woodson acknowledged the presence of several women involved in the assault but claimed not to have seen D.B. The video evidence presented showed Woodson leaving without obstruction, though she contended there was more to the story. The trial court found Woodson guilty on multiple charges, remarking on the overall consistency of the victims' testimonies despite minor discrepancies. The court noted that Woodson's account corroborated parts of the victims’ claims while also highlighting significant contradictions, particularly regarding C.G.’s actions. Ultimately, the court expressed strong skepticism about Woodson's credibility, describing her testimony as far-fetched.

At sentencing, Woodson received 180 days in jail for assault and aggravated menacing, and 90 days for criminal damaging, all sentences suspended, along with three years of probation and a $10,000 restitution order to C.G. Woodson appealed, raising three assignments of error: 

1. Woodson argued that her actions were in self-defense due to C.G. assaulting her, and therefore her conviction and the restitution order should be reversed.
2. She contended that witness testimonies were inconsistent regarding whether she assaulted C.G., asserting that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she punched C.G.
3. Woodson claimed that the varying accounts from the State’s witnesses indicated a failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she drove towards partygoers.

The court analyzed the manifest weight of evidence regarding self-defense. Woodson did not provide sufficient evidence to support her self-defense claim, and the city argued that she was responsible for the situation, justifying the trial court's rejection of her self-defense argument. The court emphasized its role as a "thirteenth juror," reviewing evidence without favoring the prosecution and acknowledging the trial court's discretion in assessing witness credibility. Under Ohio law, the prosecution must disprove a self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt if evidence supporting it is presented. Ultimately, the trial court retains authority over the weight of evidence and the credibility of witnesses.

Self-defense can apply to property crimes like criminal damaging when actions taken for self-defense lead to other alleged violations, as long as those actions are closely related to the self-defense claim. A defendant must present evidence supporting their self-defense claim before the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove it. This evidence must demonstrate that the defendant was not at fault in creating the situation and had a genuine belief of imminent danger requiring the use of force. When using nondeadly force, the defendant must show reasonable grounds for their belief of imminent harm. In the case at hand, Woodson's self-defense claim was unsuccessful because she failed to provide sufficient evidence to support each element of the claim, maintaining the burden on the city to disprove her defense. Ohio law stipulates that a person cannot claim self-defense if they provoked the assault or voluntarily engaged in the confrontation. The first element of self-defense requires that the defendant was not at fault in creating the circumstances that led to the conflict, a standard that extends beyond merely not being the initial aggressor.

Woodson could not assert a self-defense claim because her own testimony indicated she was at least partially responsible for the altercation. During a verbal dispute, Woodson punched C.G., establishing her as the immediate aggressor. Testimonies revealed that tensions escalated because Woodson refused to leave C.G.'s property when asked, which contributed to the conflict. Despite Woodson's claim that she was there to pick up Ali C., her actions demonstrated a choice to remain in a hostile environment, allowing the situation to deteriorate. Woodson did not provide evidence to support the first element of a self-defense claim, thus the burden of proof did not shift to the prosecution. Consequently, the trial court correctly ruled against her self-defense claim and upheld her conviction for criminal damaging. Woodson's arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence for her assault and aggravated menacing convictions were rejected, as the trial court found the witnesses' varying accounts to be reasonable given the time lapse from the incident to the trial.

Woodson challenges the assault and aggravated menacing convictions, arguing that the victims' testimonies contain significant inconsistencies, which raise doubts about the events of that night. The city defends the convictions, asserting that any discrepancies were minor and that some testimonies were corroborated by additional witnesses, including Woodson herself. Despite acknowledging discrepancies, the court finds that the victims' accounts were sufficiently consistent to uphold their testimonies. Key differences noted include D.B.'s lack of observation of any physical altercation and conflicting accounts regarding Woodson's actions, such as whether she chased C.G. with her car. While there were notable discrepancies in details like the timeline and the number of people present, the core elements of the victims' narratives aligned. These included Woodson looking in windows, her refusal to leave when asked, the physical confrontation with C.G., and her subsequent actions with her vehicle, which were corroborated by witness Beck and Woodson’s own admissions. Conversely, Woodson's account portrayed her as a victim, claiming she was assaulted by the women and asserting that D.B. was not present, despite D.B. recording evidence of the incident. Woodson also alleged C.G. attacked her with a vehicle and damaged her car, but failed to provide supporting evidence for these claims.

Woodson's account of the incident involving C.G.'s car is inconsistent with the extent of the damage and does not clarify how her license plate was found imprinted on C.G.'s bumper. The trial court described Woodson's narrative as one of the most implausible it had encountered in 27 years. While credibility is a factor in evaluating the manifest weight of evidence, deference is given to the trial court's assessments, as it observed witness testimonies firsthand. The court found the victims more credible than Woodson and was better positioned to determine the identity of a voice on video that could contradict Woodson’s assertion that D.B. was absent that night. Despite some issues with witness credibility, the court concluded it did not err in resolving the conflicting testimonies and did not create a manifest miscarriage of justice in upholding Woodson's convictions. Consequently, the judgment from the Toledo Municipal Court is affirmed, and Woodson is ordered to bear the costs of the appeal. A certified copy of this entry serves as the official mandate.