State v. Buttram
2020 Ohio 2709
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Police and EMS responded to a report of a possible overdose at Buttram’s apartment; Officer Kelly Garner activated her body-worn camera on arrival.
- Garner found Buttram seated on the bathroom floor holding an uncapped, loaded syringe and noted a dose of Narcan on the sink.
- Garner repeatedly ordered Buttram to drop the syringe; he initially refused, then stood and walked toward Garner while still holding the syringe.
- Garner warned Buttram she would use pepper spray; after continued noncompliance she sprayed him twice, after which medics retrieved the syringe and treated him.
- Buttram was charged with obstructing official business (R.C. 2921.31(A)), tried by the court, found guilty, and sentenced to 90 days in jail.
- Buttram appealed, challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting his conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Buttram) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Affirmative act: whether refusal alone suffices | Buttram physically stood, walked toward officer, and forced restraint—an affirmative act beyond mere refusal | He only refused to comply; mere noncompliance is not an "act" under R.C. 2921.31 | Court: Affirmative act proven—his movement toward officer and requiring restraint constituted an act |
| Intent: whether Buttram acted with purpose to obstruct | His repeated, knowing noncompliance and advancing with a syringe showed purposeful obstruction | He was incoherent/intoxicated from narcotics and lacked the requisite intent | Court: Purpose inferred from manner, repeated refusals, and communications; voluntary intoxication cannot negate intent |
| Hamper/impede: whether conduct materially impeded officer duties | His conduct created a safety risk, prevented full assessment, and delayed control of the scene | Interaction was brief and did not substantially stop or delay the officer | Court: Conduct hampered officer performance (substantial stoppage not tied to fixed time) |
| Weight of the evidence: whether conviction created a manifest miscarriage of justice | Video and testimony support the conviction; trier of fact appropriately credited evidence | Video susceptible to alternate interpretation; court should have acquitted on weight grounds | Court: As thirteenth juror, declined to find a miscarriage of justice; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (articulates sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- State v. Wellman, 173 Ohio App.3d 494 (1st Dist. 2007) (affirmative-act inquiry focuses on total course of conduct)
- State v. Body, 117 N.E.3d 1024 (2d Dist. 2018) (total course of verbal and physical conduct relevant to obstructing-official-business charge)
- State v. Crowell, 189 Ohio App.3d 468 (2d Dist. 2010) (refusal alone insufficient to constitute an affirmative act)
- Middletown v. Hollon, 156 Ohio App.3d 565 (12th Dist. 2004) (refusal to provide identification not an act for obstructing-official-business)
- State v. Stephens, 57 Ohio App.2d 229 (1st Dist. 1978) (requiring a substantial stoppage to show hampering or impeding)
- State v. Gordon, 9 Ohio App.3d 184 (1st Dist. 1983) (defendant’s act must have more effect than silence or refusal)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (weight and credibility of evidence are for the trier of fact)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)