State v. Durbin
2013 Ohio 5147
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Wayne A. Durbin, father and residential parent of three children, got into a physical altercation at home on May 26, 2012; daughter A.D. was shoved into a couch and nearly caused it to tip.
- Deputies arrested Durbin and charged him with domestic violence and misdemeanor child endangering (R.C. 2919.22(A)); he pleaded not guilty.
- At trial, the jury acquitted Durbin of domestic violence but found him guilty of child endangering; sentencing included 180 days (150 suspended) and a $250 fine.
- Durbin requested jury instructions on self-defense and reasonable parental discipline; the trial court declined to give a parental-discipline instruction and did not object at trial to the child-endangering instruction’s specifics.
- Durbin moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29 at the close of the State’s case and again after all evidence; both motions were denied.
- Durbin appealed, arguing errors in jury instructions, insufficiency and manifest-weight of the evidence, and improper denial of his Crim.R. 29 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instruction on child endangering was incomplete (failure to define recklessness/substantial risk) | State: Instructions, taken as a whole, were adequate to allow conviction. | Durbin: Court omitted full explanation of "recklessness" and "substantial risk." | No plain error; instruction adequate in context. |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing a reasonable parental-discipline instruction | State: Not required because facts did not support giving the instruction. | Durbin: Shove of A.D. could be reasonable parental discipline or to keep her out of harm’s way. | No abuse of discretion; refusal proper under the circumstances. |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support child-endangering conviction (Crim.R. 29) | State: Evidence (A.D.’s testimony that she was hard-pushed and couch nearly tipped) supports reckless creation of substantial risk and breach of duty. | Durbin: Push was minor/defensive; did not create substantial risk or violate duty of care. | Sufficient evidence; Crim.R. 29 denial properly upheld. |
| Whether verdict was against manifest weight of the evidence | State: Credibility determinations supported jury verdict. | Durbin: Jury should have credited his and D.D.’s testimony that push was minor/disciplinary/defensive. | Not against manifest weight; no miscarriage of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Long v. State, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (plain-error standard for unpreserved error)
- Cooperrider v. State, 4 Ohio St.3d 226 (plain-error doctrine applied to jury instructions)
- O'Brien v. State, 30 Ohio St.3d 122 (recklessness as culpable mental state reference)
- Suchomski v. State, 58 Ohio St.3d 74 (parental discipline may be an affirmative defense in parent–child domestic incidents)
- Jenks v. State, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Thompkins v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for manifest-weight review)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (harmless-error principles for omitted instructions)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman harmless-error standard)