Mayfield Hts. v. Brown, 2013 Ohio 4374

Defendant Betty J. Brown was convicted of obstructing official business under Mayfield Heights Codified Ordinances §505.14 after a retrial following an earlier reversal.
The underlying incident occurred on November 8, 2008, during a welfare check at Evelyn Schwartz’s home, where Brown allegedly blocked emergency personnel from assessing Schwartz’s health needs.
Brown previously represented herself after trial counsel was discharged; the first trial led to reversal because the court did not ensure a valid waiver of counsel.
At the retrial in September 2012, witnesses testified that Brown blocked EMS, climbed onto Schwartz’s bed, and refused to leave the bedroom, hindering nurses and paramedics.
The jury found Brown guilty; she was sentenced to 90 days in jail (suspended for no similar circumstances), a $750 fine with $250 suspended, and court costs.
The court of appeals affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded for recalculation of court costs, ordering costs to be split and remonstrated from the remand forward.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict	City: Brown blocked responders, impeded duties; sufficient proof of affirmative act.	Brown: no affirmative obstructive act proven beyond mere presence or disagreement.	Sufficient evidence supported conviction
Imposition of costs from multiple trials	Costs permitted for the entire prosecution following conviction.	Original conviction reversed; costs cannot be assessed from the first trial.	Costs reversed for first trial; only post-remand costs may be assessed
Probation-related conditioning of sentencing	Court may impose probationary conditions as part of sentencing.	Condition improperly imposed or beyond permissible time limits.	No error in conditioning; five-year limit applies; assignment three lacks merit

Columbus v. Michel, 55 Ohio App.2d 46 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978) (requires affirmative act to sustain obstruction)
State v. McCrone, 580 N.E.2d 468 (9th Dist. 1989) (affirmative act requirement for obstruction)
State v. Stayton, 709 N.E.2d 1224 (1st Dist. 1998) (obstruction need not succeed; impedes duties)
State v. Luke, 2010-Ohio-4309 (4th Dist. 2010) (violation does not require successful prevention)
State v. Simmons, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91628 (2007-Ohio-6636) (costs may be assessed only after conviction in sentence)
State v. Powers, 117 Ohio App.3d 124 (6th Dist. 1996) (interpretation of statutory costs and sentencing)
State v. Kortum, 2002-Ohio-613 (12th Dist. Warren) (remand costs not assessable from prior reversal)