State v. Devore
2017 Ohio 6956
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Adam M. Devore was charged with one count of assault (R.C. §2903.13) after an August 4, 2016 altercation at his girlfriend’s home in Ashland, Ohio.
- Victim Chris Johnson and witnesses testified Devore tackled, choked, and repeatedly punched Johnson, leaving Johnson with heavy facial bleeding; police observed significant injuries to Johnson and minor neck redness/scratches on Devore.
- Devore testified he acted in self-defense and presented witnesses claiming Johnson initially grabbed and threatened him.
- A jury convicted Devore of assault after a bench trial in Ashland Municipal Court.
- On appeal, Devore argued his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because he acted in self-defense.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed, finding competent, credible evidence supported the conviction and that the jury reasonably rejected Devore’s self-defense claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence | State: testimony and physical evidence supported assault conviction | Devore: acted in self-defense; jury should have credited his witnesses | Affirmed: jury verdict not against manifest weight; competent evidence supports conviction |
| Whether defendant proved self-defense by preponderance | State: defendant failed to show he was not at fault or that force was necessary | Devore: introduced evidence raising self-defense issue (witnesses claiming Johnson grabbed him) | Held: defendant failed to prove elements of self-defense (fault and retreat) by preponderance |
| Proper standard for reviewing weight-of-evidence claims | State: appellate court defers to jury credibility findings; reversal reserved for exceptional cases | Devore: appellate review should overturn where evidence favors his version | Held: appellate court will not substitute its judgment for jury unless jury clearly lost its way |
| Whether inconsistencies in witness testimony require reversal | State: inconsistencies are for jury to resolve; do not automatically require reversal | Devore: inconsistencies undermined State’s case | Held: inconsistencies do not render conviction against manifest weight when competent evidence supports verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (defines standard for reversing convictions as against the manifest weight of the evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (appellate deference to trial court findings; reasonable presumptions in favor of judgment)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (judgments supported by competent, credible evidence will not be reversed on weight grounds)
- State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St.2d 15 (1978) (standard for when an affirmative defense is sufficiently raised)
- State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247 (1990) (if any element of self-defense not proven by preponderance, defense fails)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (trial court best positioned to determine witness credibility)