State v. Elkins
2018 Ohio 1267
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Jan. 10, 2017, Drew Elkins and Victoria Chapman attended a scheduled supervised visit at Richland County Children Services (RCCS) with their infant; RCCS had warned no cell phones during visits.
- A cell phone rang during the visit; RCCS staff told Elkins and Chapman the visit was ending and they were to leave; Elkins refused and asked for a supervisor.
- Law enforcement (Sgt. William Gordon) was summoned; Gordon permitted Elkins to accompany an ambulance to the hospital but later began preparing a criminal-trespass summons in the hospital waiting room.
- While Gordon attempted to write the summons, Elkins repeatedly interrupted, spoke on his cell phone, and asked questions; officers testified these actions delayed and impeded Gordon.
- A jury convicted Elkins of obstructing official business (R.C. 2921.31(A), misdemeanor 2nd) and criminal trespass (R.C. 2911.21(A)(4), misdemeanor 4th); the municipal court suspended jail time and placed him on probation.
- Elkins appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to support both convictions; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Elkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for obstructing official business (R.C. 2921.31(A)) | Elkins repeatedly interrupted the officer, spoke on his phone, and intentionally delayed officer duties, causing significantly more time to complete the summons | The conduct was lawful protest/concern about the child and within tolerable uncooperativeness; evidence insufficient to prove an affirmative act to obstruct | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; jurors could find Elkins hampered officer performance |
| Sufficiency of evidence for criminal trespass (R.C. 2911.21(A)(4)) | Elkins remained on RCCS premises after being clearly told to leave; prior warning about phones revoked his privilege to be there | Elkins stayed because of concern about a red mark on the child and requested to speak to a supervisor; privilege remained | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; privilege was revoked and refusal to leave supported trespass conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Grice, 180 Ohio App.3d 700, 906 N.E.2d 1203 (affirmative-act requirement for obstruction)
- State v. Wellman, 173 Ohio App.3d 494, 879 N.E.2d 215 (affirmative conduct defined as physical or verbal acts that impede an officer)
- Carriker v. State, 5 Ohio App.2d 255, 214 N.E.2d 809 (remaining on premises after notice constitutes trespass)
- State v. Newell, 93 Ohio App.3d 609, 639 N.E.2d 513 (lack-of-privilege treated as an element of criminal trespass)