Cleveland v. Bryant
2017 Ohio 7246
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Louis Bryant was charged in Cleveland Municipal Court with aggravated menacing (C.C.O. 621.06) for allegedly pointing and firing an air pellet gun at a neighbor on December 24, 2015.
- Victim testified he heard a shot strike his house beneath a window, saw a small hole in the siding, and observed Bryant across the street pointing a green, camouflaged rifle with a scope at him; he said he was frightened.
- Police responded, Bryant cooperated, escorted the officer to an air pellet gun matching the description, demonstrated its use, and the gun was confiscated; officer observed the hole in the siding and thought the pellet gun could cause that damage.
- Bryant denied firing at the victim, acknowledged prior bad relations and verbal exchanges, and contended his pellet gun could not shoot across the street or cause the damage.
- After bench trial the court denied Crim.R. 29 motions, found Bryant guilty, and imposed a suspended jail term and fine; Bryant appealed asserting insufficiency, manifest-weight, and ineffective assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict of aggravated menacing | Victim’s testimony (shot, hole in siding, defendant pointing a gun, victim afraid) proves elements beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence was insufficient; no direct proof defendant acted knowingly or fired at victim | Court: Sufficient — victim testimony alone supported conviction; court could infer knowing conduct |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Trier of fact reasonably believed victim over defendant | Conviction rests on a he‑said/he‑said dispute and should be reversed | Court: Not against manifest weight — credibility resolved in favor of victim; no exceptional miscarriage of justice |
| Denial of Crim.R. 29 motion | Evidence presented met burden of production | Motion should have been granted for insufficiency | Court: Denial proper — evidence, when viewed in prosecution’s favor, was sufficient |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to call an expert re: pellet gun sound/force | Trial counsel’s lack of expert prejudiced defense and deprived fair trial | Record lacks evidence of what expert testimony would show; claim cannot be resolved on direct appeal | Court: Claim not shown on record; cannot find deficient performance or prejudice on direct appeal; overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (establishes sufficiency standard reviewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishes sufficiency from manifest-weight review)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (credibility and weight of evidence are for the trier of fact)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio application of Strickland standards)
- State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (prejudice standard; reasonable probability test under Strickland)