State v. Fisher
968 N.E.2d 510
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant-appellant Dave W. Fisher appeals a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction under R.C. 2919.25(C).
- The incident occurred late November 2010 at Shirley Fisher’s residence, where the couple were divorcing; Mr. Fisher entered the bedroom after barricades were placed.
- Shirley Fisher testified she feared for her safety after objects were thrown and the plant and telephone were hurled toward her, though she did not know if Fisher would injure her.
- Mr. Fisher testified he entered to retrieve clothing and denied throwing objects or intending to harm Shirley; he had not slept at the residence for weeks.
- The trial court denied Fisher’s motion for acquittal; the State presented testimony and conduct suggesting fear, but the court ultimately convicted Fisher.
- The majority held the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Shirley believed Fisher would cause imminent physical harm; the conviction was reversed and Fisher discharged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under 2919.25(C) | State contends victim believed imminent harm | Fisher argues no proof of imminent-harm belief | Insufficient evidence; reversed |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State argues not necessary to reweigh credibility | Fisher argues weight favors conviction | moot after reversal on sufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (Ohio 1997) (sufficiency standard: rational trier could find essential elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (syllabus on sufficiency and standard of review)
- Hamilton v. Cameron, 121 Ohio App.3d 445 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (victim’s state of mind as essential for 2919.25(C))
- Cincinnati v. Baarlaer, 115 Ohio App.3d 521 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (definition of imminent in context of harm)