State v. Bonner
2013 Ohio 3670
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Bonner was convicted of aggravated menacing in Butler County Area II Court after a bench trial.
- Inman testified that Bonner yelled threats, including beating Inman and attacking with a car, and that Bonner then drove toward Inman and her children.
- Officer Smith investigated, interviewed Inman, and learned Inman was upset and believed her children were in danger.
- Bonner testified she did not aim at Inman or her children and that the incident did not occur as Inman described.
- The trial court sentenced Bonner to 180 days in jail and a fine, suspended, and placed her on two years of community control with no contact with Inman and mandatory anger management.
- On appeal, Bonner challenged (1) allocution during sentencing, (2) credit for pretrial confinement, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated menacing, with the court remanding for resentencing on allocution and addressing the confinement issue later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated menacing | Bonner argues evidence is insufficient | State contends sufficient evidence supported conviction | Conviction supported by sufficient evidence |
| Allocution before sentencing | Bonner not personally addressed; misstep affects sentence | No issue raised about allocution timing | Remanded for resentencing to address allocution opportunity |
| Credit for pretrial confinement | Court failed to award time served | Moot due to remand for resentencing | Moot; remanded for resentencing on allocution; confinement issue to be reconsidered then |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilson, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2006-01-007 (2007-Ohio-2298) (sufficiency review guidance; credible witnesses defer to trier of fact)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Benson, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-02-061 (2009-Ohio-6741) (credibility determinations within the trial court’s province)
- State v. Russell, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2011-06-058, CA2011-09-097 (2012-Ohio-1127) (aggravated menacing can be based on present or future fear; intent not required)
- State v. Ali, 154 Ohio App.3d 493 (2003-Ohio-5150) (place of fear as element of menacing)
- State v. Short, 129 Ohio St.3d 360 (2011-Ohio-3641) (allocution right importance and non-waivable nature)
- State v. Copeland, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2007-02-039 (2007-Ohio-6168) (allocution requirement and mitigation opportunity)
- State v. Haynes, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-10-273 (2011-Ohio-5743) (allocution rights)
- State v. Collier, 2d Dist. Clark Nos. 2006 CA 102, 2006 CA 104 (2007-Ohio-6349) (legal standards for sentencing and allocution context)