State v. Ellis
2022 Ohio 962
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- On Dec. 26, 2020, surveillance video and witness testimony showed Damon "Biscuit" Ellis forcibly remove eight‑year‑old A.G. from an apartment, stuff him into the trunk of a car, slam the trunk lid while A.G. struggled, and lock him inside; A.G. was in the trunk for several minutes, frightened, and had scratches on his forearm.
- Police responded to an anonymous 911 report; officers inspected the vehicle and later arrested Ellis after viewing surveillance footage.
- Ellis was indicted for two counts of kidnapping, one count of abduction (acquitted), and one count of endangering children (felony).
- Mother Shirmira Rhodes testified Ellis lived in the home and sometimes disciplined A.G., but also said Ellis “crossed a line” and was angry about the trunk incident.
- Defense sought a jury instruction on reasonable parental discipline / in loco parentis; the court declined the defense’s proposed instruction but ultimately instructed the jury on reasonable parental discipline and in loco parentis in its own wording.
- Jury convicted Ellis of two kidnapping counts and felony child endangering; court merged kidnapping counts and sentenced Ellis to 8–12 years (kidnapping) concurrent with 36 months (child endangering). Ellis appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence for kidnapping (R.C. 2905.01(A)(3) and (B)(2)) | State: video, A.G.’s testimony, officer and detective testimony, and visible injuries show force/restraint, intent to terrorize, and a substantial risk of serious physical harm. | Ellis: acted as in loco parentis with permission to discipline; brief attempt to scare the child was discipline, not kidnapping. | Court: Affirmed — jury credibly found force, restraint, terrorizing/scare‑straight intent, and substantial risk of serious harm; verdict supported by manifest weight (thus sufficiency). |
| Sufficiency/manifest weight for felony child endangering (R.C. 2919.22(B)(3)) | State: Ellis’s conduct (putting an eight‑year‑old in a dark trunk, slamming lid, nails digging into arm) created a substantial risk of serious physical harm; actual serious harm not required. | Ellis: no proof of serious physical harm; at most misdemeanor endangering or permissible discipline. | Court: Affirmed — State needed only to prove substantial risk of serious physical harm; jury reasonably found discipline was excessive and created that risk. |
| Failure/refusal to give defendant’s proposed reasonable parental discipline / in loco parentis instruction | State: proposed wording referenced domestic‑violence statute and was inapplicable; statute for child endangerment does not require in loco parentis. | Ellis: testimony supported in loco parentis and affirmative defense of reasonable discipline; instruction should be given. | Court: Trial court did not adopt the defense’s proposed instruction as written but did give an instruction on reasonable parental discipline and in loco parentis in its own form; no reversible error. |
| Preservation of sufficiency challenge (Crim.R. 29 renewal) | State: failure to renew Crim.R. 29 at close of all evidence waived insufficiency argument. | Ellis: argues merits of insufficiency/weight. | Court: Although preservation issue noted, appellate court resolved sufficiency via manifest weight review and affirmed convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (describes manifest‑weight standard and appellate review).
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (sets the sufficiency-of-the-evidence test).
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist. 1983) (discusses when a new trial is required based on weight of the evidence).