State v. Cross
2011 Ohio 3250
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Cross was arrested for an incident at 738 Hazel Street on April 7, 2010 and indicted on multiple domestic violence counts and a protection-order violation.
- Supplemental indictment on June 14, 2010 added a fifth-degree domestic-violence charge and a misdemeanor violation of a protection order.
- Cross pleaded not guilty; jury trial occurred June 16–18, 2010; jury convicted on three DV counts and the protection-order violation; Crim.R. 29 motion as to aggravated menacing was granted.
- Cross was sentenced to a total of six months in prison on June 30, 2010.
- Cross timely appealed raising five assignments of error; the court rearranged them for review.
- The appellate court affirmed all convictions, including sufficiency and weight challenges, but noted the dissent’s view on one statutory-error issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DV convictions | Cross argues insufficient evidence to prove identity and harm. | State contends evidence, viewed most favorably to the State, supports guilt. | Sufficient evidence supported convictions. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for protection-order violation | Cross contends no proof of terms or contact prohibited. | State introduced a copy of the order, testimony, and jail recording showing violation. | Sufficient evidence supported violation of the protection order. |
| Correctness of imposing mandatory prison term under R.C. 2919.25(D)(5)/A(6) | Statutory drafting error (A)(6) should be read; court should not modify statute. | Trial court correctly interpreted the statute to implement the legislature’s intent. | Court correctly imposed the mandatory term under the intended provision (D)(6) as applied to pregnancy. |
| Separation of powers and statutory correction | Trial court’s amendment of the statute usurped legislative power. | No separation-of-powers violation; the court corrected a typographical error to give effect to intent. | Issue forfeited; no plain-error found; no reversible error on separation of powers. |
| Admission of the 911 anonymous call | Call was relevant and possibly prejudicial; hearsay issues. | Evidence was properly admitted and the issue was forfeited for appellate review. | Issue forfeited; no plain-error analysis undertaken; admission upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard: rational trier of fact could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202 (Ohio 2009) (reviewing sufficiency in context of trial evidence in chief)
- State v. Freitag, 185 Ohio App.3d 580 (Ohio App. 2009) (procedure for reviewing sufficiency with admitted evidence)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (Ohio App. 1986) (manifest weight review limited to extraordinary circumstances)
- State v. Jackson, 86 Ohio App.3d 29 (Ohio App. 1993) (credibility and witness-weight determinations within jury province)
- State v. Tran, 9th Dist. No. 22911 (2006) (circumstantial evidence may support conviction even if consistent with innocence)