State v. Conkle
2012 Ohio 1772
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Conkle was convicted in Miamisburg Municipal Court of aggravated menacing (Aug. 7, 2009) and menacing (Aug. 30, 2009) involving Melinda Hill.
- The offenses arose during Hill's divorce from Jason Hill, with Conkle identified as Jason's girlfriend.
- Trial was a bench proceeding; the State sought separation of witnesses, and defense considered calling Jason but did not disclose him.
- On Aug. 7, Hill received a private-number call from Conkle with threats and profanity, heard by coworkers, causing fear.
- On Aug. 30, Conkle confronted Hill at Hill's home, threatened to kill her, Hill fled and obtained a protective order.
- Sentencing occurred with jail time and fines; allocution rights were later found to have been violated, requiring remand for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility impeachment limits on Hill | State argues impeachment rules permitted the evidence. | Conkle argues broader inquiry into Hill's credibility and bias. | No reversible error; some evidence excluded but not outcome-determinative. |
| Continuance for Jason's testimony and discovery sanctions | State contends court did not abuse discretion in denying continuance. | Conkle contends continuance should have been granted to obtain Jason's testimony. | Discretionary denial upheld; no abuse of discretion. |
| Right to proffer Jason's testimony after denial of continuance | State argues no prejudice from not proffering detailed testimony. | Conkle asserts error in denying a proffer to preserve appellate review. | No prejudice; proffer denial not reversible. |
| Allocution at sentencing | State contends allocution rights were satisfied or not error in lack of oral input. | Conkle asserts Crim.R. 32(A) right to allocution was violated. | Allocution right violated; remand for resentencing required. |
| Weight of the evidence for aggravated menacing | State contends evidence supports conviction. | Conkle argues conviction contrary to manifest weight. | Conviction not against weight; affirm as to credibility findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio St.2d 1981) (trial court's discretion in continuances and related rulings)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for determining weight of the evidence)
- State v. Elmore, 111 Ohio St.3d 515 (Ohio 2006) (manifest weight review framework)