2018 Ohio 1758
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In June 2016 Daerico Calhoun was charged in Cleveland Municipal Court with domestic violence, endangering children, and unlawful restraint after a confrontation with his 11‑year‑old son and the child’s mother following a public event.
- The son had been returned to his mother after attending a parade; Calhoun confronted the child, grabbed his arm, shook him, removed him from the car, and poked him in the chest.
- The mother intervened; Calhoun pushed her with his forearm during the altercation, but the mother testified she was not pushed to the ground or injured.
- Calhoun’s girlfriend struck the mother once before the mother left with the child and reported the incident to police.
- At a bench trial Calhoun was convicted of domestic violence and child endangering (ordinance mirroring R.C. 2919.22) and sentenced to jail with most time suspended and one year active probation; unlawful restraint conviction was rejected.
- On appeal the Eighth District reviewed sufficiency of the evidence for domestic violence and child endangering and reversed and vacated both convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)) | The forearm push and prior grabbing/poking of the child show knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm to a household member. | The push was minimal, caused no injury, and did not show an attempt or probability of causing physical harm. | Reversed — evidence insufficient; forearm push did not establish attempt to cause physical harm. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for child endangering (Cleveland Ord. 609.04 / R.C. 2919.22) | The affirmative acts (grabbing, shaking, poking child) constituted abuse creating substantial risk and were reckless. | The child suffered no physical injury; the conduct was imperfect parental discipline, not abuse creating substantial risk of harm. | Reversed — evidence insufficient; no demonstration of abuse or substantial risk of serious harm under subsection (B); subsection (A) inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and manifest-weight claims)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (constitutionally required sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (2004) (articulating the "rational trier of fact" sufficiency test)
- State v. Kamel, 12 Ohio St.3d 306 (1984) (distinguishes R.C. 2919.22(A) neglect from 2919.22(B) affirmative abuse)
- State v. Sammons, 58 Ohio St.2d 460 (1979) (analysis of affirmative acts of abuse vs. omission)
- State v. Ivey, 98 Ohio App.3d 249 (1994) (defining child abuse as acts inflicting serious physical harm or creating substantial risk of serious harm)