State v. Crenshaw
2020 Ohio 3183
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- January 2019: Nine-year-old D.T. stayed with her mother, India Crenshaw; after the child and others used Crenshaw’s hair dye to make slime and spilled it, Crenshaw struck D.T. with a metal spoon, hit her legs with an extension cord, and pushed her head into a wall.
- Medical: D.T. had bruises on arms and legs and a 5 cm lump on her forehead; ER provided Tylenol and ice, found no signs of intracranial injury, and advised return only if symptoms worsened.
- Indictment and trial: Crenshaw was indicted on Count 1: R.C. 2919.22(B)(1) (child abuse/"abuse" — felony), Count 2: R.C. 2919.22(A) (create substantial risk — felony), and Count 3: R.C. 2919.25(A) (domestic violence — misdemeanor, with a furthermore clause seeking enhancement to felony based on a prior aggravated assault).
- Bench trial (waived jury): court convicted Crenshaw on all counts and sentenced her to an aggregate four-year sentence (concurrent) with postrelease control.
- Appeal issues: competency of child witness, sufficiency and manifest weight (Crim.R. 29) of domestic violence and endangering counts, whether injuries constituted "serious physical harm," whether prior conviction supported enhancement, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Disposition below: appellate court affirmed domestic-violence conviction but reversed and discharged the two child-endangering convictions and vacated the enhancement, remanding for resentencing as a misdemeanor.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Crenshaw's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency of child witness to testify (under 10) | Child answered oath and questions; testimony admissible. | Trial court erred by not conducting a full voir dire competency hearing for a nine‑year‑old. | No plain error: child appeared capable of receiving and relating facts; bench trial context weighs against reversal. |
| Domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)) — sufficiency & manifest weight | Physical acts (spoon, cord, push) and bruising/lump constitute "physical harm." | Discipline was parental corporal punishment and was proper/reasonable; Crim.R. 29 argued. | Conviction upheld: evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight; parental-discipline defense rejected on these facts. |
| Child endangering (R.C. 2919.22(B)(1)) — "abuse" / serious physical harm | Injuries and pain show serious physical harm/abuse. | Injuries were bruises and lump only, not "serious physical harm." | Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove "serious physical harm" as required for this felony provision. |
| Child endangering (R.C. 2919.22(A)) — duty violation / substantial risk | Failure to obtain medical care created substantial risk. | No serious injury or signs of head trauma that required medical intervention. | Reversed: insufficient evidence that Crenshaw violated a duty by creating a substantial risk to health or safety. |
| Enhancement of domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(D)(3) based on prior aggravated assault | Prior aggravated-assault journal entries were before the court; enhancement appropriate (State asserts victim was a family member). | Record does not show prior victim was a family/household member; enhancement not proven. | Reversed enhancement: prior-conviction victim relationship is an essential element and was not proven or stipulated; remand for misdemeanor sentencing. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (cumulative errors) | Trial counsel made strategic choices and did not perform deficiently. | Counsel made multiple errors and failed to preserve issues (e.g., enhancement proof). | Denied: counsel’s actions were strategic and not shown to be prejudicial in a way that would meet Strickland. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Suchomski, 58 Ohio St.3d 74, 567 N.E.2d 1304 (1991) (parental corporal punishment can be a defense unless it causes "physical harm" as defined by statute)
- State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247, 574 N.E.2d 483 (1991) (trial judge must conduct voir dire to determine competency of children under ten)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (sufficiency standard: whether reasonable minds could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency from manifest-weight review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Ivey, 98 Ohio App.3d 249, 648 N.E.2d 519 (1994) (examples of injuries that did not meet statutory "serious physical harm")
- State v. Tate, 138 Ohio St.3d 139, 4 N.E.3d 1016 (2014) (a prior conviction that elevates punishment is an element the State must prove)