Cleveland v. Gosier
2016 Ohio 7961
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Tammy Gosier was charged in Cleveland Municipal Court with criminal damaging for allegedly vandalizing her then-husband Andre Barnes’s BMW on May 20, 2015.
- A maintenance worker, Edmond Aponte, testified he observed Gosier spray-painting the car, breaking lights and mirrors, and identified her in court; a security camera recorded the act but did not show a clear facial image.
- Barnes testified he saw Gosier from inside a lunchroom but gave inconsistent distance estimates; Aponte disputed the existence of that lunchroom window.
- Gosier testified she was at home working during the incident and attempted to introduce an unauthenticated call log; she admitted a prior false report against Barnes.
- The trial court found Aponte credible, convicted Gosier of criminal damaging, and sentenced her to 90 days jail (suspended), two years active probation, fines, and $3,216.91 restitution based on an autobody estimate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | State argued Aponte’s in-court ID and testimony were credible and sufficient | Gosier argued identification was unreliable and testimony conflicted; security video didn’t show face | Court held conviction was not against manifest weight; credited Aponte and declined relief |
| Whether restitution lacked competent, credible support | State relied on a detailed repair estimate for $3,216.91 and victim’s confirmation | Gosier argued the restitution amount was unsupported (but raised no objection at sentencing) | Court held restitution was supported by the repair estimate; no plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review and reweighing evidence)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (appellate court may act as a "thirteenth juror" on weight-of-evidence review)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility determinations are primarily for the trier of fact)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1984) (discussing reversal standard when evidence weighs heavily against conviction)
- State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31 (1990) (restitution must be supported by competent, credible evidence and a reasonable degree of certainty)