Ashland v. Francis
2017 Ohio 8525
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On August 27, 2016, Jonathan Francis (defendant) and his mother, Emmalean Quinn, argued with Emmalean’s estranged husband Leonard Quinn in the roadway near their homes. A neighbor, Toby Shire, witnessed events.
- During the confrontation defendant brandished a 2x6 and a large flashlight, made threats, then drove his pickup toward Leonard after accelerating and spinning out of his yard.
- Witnesses (Leonard and Shire) testified the truck struck Leonard, knocking him back a few feet; Emmalean testified the truck came toward Leonard and she doubted it struck him, or only barely did.
- Police arrested defendant after he refused to speak, admitted driving the truck to "prove the brakes were bad," and was Mirandized.
- Defendant was charged with misdemeanor first‑degree assault (R.C. 2903.13(A)) and possession of criminal tools (R.C. 2923.24), tried to a jury, convicted, and sentenced; he appealed contesting sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support assault conviction (knowingly attempt to cause harm) | Evidence (threats, brandishing weapons, driving truck at Leonard, witness testimony) established defendant acted knowingly and attempted to cause harm | Defendant lacked intent to injure; he intended only to scare and did not knowingly try to cause physical harm | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational trier of fact could find knowing attempt to cause harm |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support possession of criminal tools conviction (use of truck with criminal purpose) | Truck was used as an instrument in the attempt to assault; control and criminal purpose supported conviction | Without intent to injure, no criminal purpose in using the truck | Affirmed — sufficient evidence that defendant controlled the truck and intended to use it criminally |
| Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence | Witness testimony and circumstances supported credibility of prosecution and verdict | Inconsistencies and defense witnesses undercut prosecution — conviction is a miscarriage of justice | Affirmed — appellate court found no exceptional case where jury lost its way; credibility and weight for jury to resolve |
| Whether lack of physical injury negates assault conviction | Attempted harm is sufficient; actual injury not required under R.C. 2903.13(A) | Emphasizes lack of injury to argue no assault occurred | Rejected — attempt to cause harm is penalized; actual injury not required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest‑weight standards; appellate court as "thirteenth juror")
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Miller, 96 Ohio St.3d 384 (Ohio 2002) (definition of "knowingly" in criminal mens rea)
- State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 2002) (trial court/factfinder resolves witness credibility)
- State v. Walker, 55 Ohio St.2d 208 (Ohio 1978) (appellate deference to jury verdict when competent evidence supports it)