State v. Dendinger
2019 Ohio 2158
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Incident: On July 31, 2018, Rhonda Dendinger went to her daughter Kelsey and son‑in‑law Nathan Miller’s home after Kelsey asked for support during marital dispute.
- Conduct at issue: Miller testified Dendinger twice reached into or patted his shorts pockets (including near his crotch), despite him telling her not to touch him; Miller left the home and called police. Dendinger denied putting her hand inside pockets or touching Miller’s crotch.
- Charge and disposition: Dendinger was charged with and convicted at a bench trial of disorderly conduct, R.C. 2917.11(A)(5) (minor misdemeanor); court fined her $100 plus costs.
- Procedural posture: Dendinger appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of the evidence, (2) manifest‑weight challenge, and (3) judicial bias against her attorney. The Third District affirmed.
- Key factual findings: The court relied primarily on Miller’s testimony that Dendinger reached into his pockets after being told to stop, caused him to feel physically offended and uncomfortable, and did so without lawful, reasonable purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Whether evidence supported disorderly conduct conviction under R.C. 2917.11(A)(5) | State: Miller’s testimony showed Dendinger recklessly caused annoyance/inconvenience by creating a physically offensive condition (touching/patting pockets near crotch) with no lawful purpose. | Dendinger: She only felt outer pocket area to locate a key, did not put hand inside pocket, lacked intent/recklessness and lawful purpose (was invited to house). | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, Miller’s testimony provided sufficient evidence of recklessness, physical offensiveness, and no lawful purpose. |
| Manifest weight: Whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | State: Credible testimony (Miller) supports conviction; conflicts were for the trier of fact. | Dendinger: Her testimony contradicted Miller’s; trial court should have preferred her version; evidence does not clearly support guilt. | Affirmed — appellate court concluded factfinder did not clearly lose its way; credibility was for the trial judge. |
| Judicial bias: Whether judge exhibited bias against defense counsel depriving fair trial | State: Judge’s comments were routine admonitions/explanations and do not show hostile bias affecting outcome. | Dendinger: Two bench comments (on leading questions; addressing counsel directly before ruling) showed hostility/bias toward counsel and unfairness. | Affirmed — comments did not amount to judicial bias; routine rebuke/explanation permissible, no showing of prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest‑weight review)
- Awan v. State, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 489 N.E.2d 277 (Ohio 1986) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)
- Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463, 132 N.E.2d 191 (Ohio 1956) (definition of judicial bias as hostile feeling or spirit of ill will)
- Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1954) (trial judge entitled to a modicum of quick temper; sharp words do not alone establish bias)