State v. Ford
2017 Ohio 9294
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Demetrius Ford was charged after his four-month-old daughter suffered scald burns (face, neck, shoulders) and fractures (ribs and skull) while in his care.
- Ford testified he bathed the infant in a mesh seat using a detachable shower head, noticed steaming water, left to grab a towel/blanket, returned to find skin peeling, called 911, and the child later fell off a couch; he denied intentionally harming the child.
- Medical testimony: two physicians concluded the burns were consistent with immersion (dunking) rather than splash/scald from a shower head; rib fractures were consistent with abuse; disagreement existed on timing of fractures but skull fracture was attributed to impact.
- Grand jury indicted Ford on felonious assault and multiple child endangerment counts; some counts were dismissed pretrial; at trial jury convicted Ford of one count of felonious assault (burns) and two counts of endangering children (one for burns, one for fractures), acquitting him of felonious assault as to fractures.
- Trial court merged overlapping counts for sentencing and imposed the maximum eight-year prison term; Ford appealed raising sufficiency, manifest-weight, and sentencing errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions | Evidence (medical testimony, injuries, timing) supports convictions | Argues convictions unsupported because no direct evidence and offered alternative account | Court declined to address merits — Ford failed to develop legal argument; assignment disregarded |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Jury verdict is supported by credible evidence and expert testimony | Argues verdict against manifest weight; urges jury miscredited State's evidence | Court disregarded assignment for inadequate briefing; no evaluation on merits |
| Sentencing: whether trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.12(E) factors before imposing maximum | Trial court considered record, seriousness, recidivism, and necessity of prison; sentence within statutory range | Claims court ignored lack of prior convictions and his remorse, so maximum sentence improper | Court affirmed: presumes trial court considered sentencing statutes; sentence within statutory range and not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (circumstantial and direct evidence have equivalent probative value)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate relief for felony sentence only if record clearly and convincingly fails to support trial court findings or sentence contrary to law)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (when trial court does not recite consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, appellate courts may presume the court considered those statutes if sentence within statutory range)