State v. Danner, 2023 Ohio 638

Defendant Timothy Danner was charged and convicted of domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(A) for allegedly grabbing and choking his former partner, Cassandra Willoughby.
The parties had a four‑year relationship and had lived together on two prior occasions (one year in an apartment; later in Willoughby’s father’s house); they were not fully reconciled at the time of the incident but were described as attempting to reconcile.
The dispute arose over a broken center console in Willoughby’s car; Willoughby testified Danner choked her and photos showed a red mark on her neck; officers took a signed affidavit and photos after she reported the assault.
Danner denied choking her, contending Willoughby lunged at him, he fell on her with hands on her shoulders, and any neck redness was from her complexion when upset.
The trial court denied Danner’s Crim.R. 29 motion, found him guilty, sentenced him (jail with partial suspension, community control, no‑contact, anger management), and he appealed challenging (1) sufficiency re: family/household member (cohabitation) and (2) manifest weight/credibility of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the victim qualified as a "family or household member" (person living as a spouse/cohabitation) for R.C. 2919.25	State: prior shared residences and relationship history establish cohabitation (including within five years), satisfying statutory definition.	Danner: they were not living together at the time; his presence was temporary; stored belongings in basement show non‑cohabitation; no ongoing spousal‑type consortium.	Court: affirmed cohabitation — prior periods of living together within five years sufficed under McGlothan/Williams; element proven.
Whether conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence (credibility of Willoughby)	State: testimony, officers’ observations, signed affidavit, and photos of a neck injury support the verdict and the trial court’s credibility findings.	Danner: Willoughby’s redness is explainable by upset complexion; his account is more plausible; trial court should not have credited her.	Court: trial court did not lose its way; credited victim’s testimony; conviction not against manifest weight.

State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255, 847 N.E.2d 386 (Ohio 2006) (sufficiency review standard for Crim.R. 29 and criminal convictions)
State v. Walker, 150 Ohio St.3d 409, 82 N.E.3d 1124 (Ohio 2016) (explaining the Jenks sufficiency test)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases)
State v. Shabazz, 146 Ohio St.3d 404, 57 N.E.3d 1119 (Ohio 2016) (deference to jury/factfinder where reasonable minds could differ)
State v. Ellison, 178 Ohio App.3d 734, 900 N.E.2d 228 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (de novo review of sufficiency legal question)
State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459, 683 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio 1997) (cohabitation may be shown by sharing familial/financial responsibilities and consortium; broader protection recognized)
State v. McGlothan, 138 Ohio St.3d 146, 4 N.E.3d 1021 (Ohio 2014) (statutory construction: domestic‑violence protection arises from the relationship, not exact living circumstances)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (manifest‑weight review: appellate court acts as thirteenth juror; reversal only if trial court clearly lost its way)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (articulating standard for reversing on manifest weight grounds)