State v. Erdmann
2019 Ohio 261
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On July 4, 2017 officers were called to Joshua Erdmann’s home; later that evening officers returned on a suicidal-person call and found Erdmann with a severe left-forearm laceration.
- Officers Rhodes and Kresser assisted paramedics by holding Erdmann’s legs while paramedics treated him; Erdmann was thrashing and resisting.
- Officers Rhodes and Kresser testified Erdmann lifted his right leg and kicked Officer Kresser in the left side of the face; contemporaneously Erdmann later spat on Kresser while being placed in an ambulance.
- Photographs admitted showed saliva on Officer Kresser’s uniform; a ‘‘spit hood’’ was placed on Erdmann.
- Erdmann’s father and wife testified they did not see a kick land; a paramedic did not recall seeing a kick. Erdmann denied kicking at trial (did not testify).
- Indicted for assault of a peace officer (R.C. 2903.13(A), (C)(5)); convicted by jury; denied Crim.R. 29 motion; appealed asserting insufficient evidence and manifest-weight error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Erdmann) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was evidence sufficient to prove Erdmann knowingly assaulted a peace officer? | Testimony and circumstantial evidence established Erdmann had a clear line of sight and intentionally kicked Officer Kresser; viewed in light most favorable to State, any rational trier could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Erdmann contends any contact was accidental because he had been flailing and did not know an officer was at his feet. | Affirmed — sufficient evidence supported a finding of knowing conduct. |
| 2. Was the conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence? | State argues the jury properly weighed credibility and relied on officers’ consistent testimony over defense witnesses. | Erdmann argues defense witnesses (father, wife, paramedic) showed the kick did not occur or was accidental, so jury verdict is a miscarriage of justice. | Affirmed — jury credibility determinations were reasonable; conviction not against manifest weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest weight standards)