State v. Friedman, 2013 Ohio 4669

Late-night 9-1-1 hang-up from Tim Friedman’s home led officers to respond; fresh damage (overturned glass table) and a verbal argument were observed.
Tim (the homeowner and appellant’s son) told police he wanted his mother, Tina Friedman, removed from the house.
Officers told Tina to leave; she went downstairs, moved toward the kitchen to speak to her son, and refused repeated orders to leave.
Officers handcuffed Tina and placed her in a police cruiser; she appeared intoxicated and later admitted consuming three shots.
Prosecutor charged Tina with one count of obstructing official business (R.C. 2921.31); a jury convicted her.
Trial court sentenced Tina to 90 days (89 suspended), two years probation, community service, counseling/AA requirements; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Whether failure to leave can be an "act" under R.C. 2921.31	State: Her refusal and movement toward the kitchen were affirmative acts that impeded officers removing her	Friedman: Obstruction requires an affirmative act; passive refusal to leave is not an "act"	Affirmed: Her repeated refusal and movement away from officer constituted an "act" with intent to impede officers
Manifest weight: Whether verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: Officer testimony showed she disregarded orders and moved away, supporting conviction	Friedman: Officer testimony was inconsistent; conviction is against the manifest weight	Affirmed: Record consistent that she moved away and ignored orders; jury did not lose its way
Ineffective assistance: Failure to move for Crim.R. 29 at close of all evidence	State: Even if counsel omitted the motion, sufficiency existed so result would be unchanged	Friedman: Counsel erred by not moving for directed verdict	Affirmed: Conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, so no prejudice shown
Cruel and unusual: Sentence disproportionality challenge	State: Sentence tailored to address alcohol component and rehabilitation; within court’s discretion	Friedman: Probation and conditions more severe than other similar cases; shocks the conscience	Affirmed: Two years probation and conditions not grossly disproportionate nor cruel and unusual

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. McCrone, 63 Ohio App.3d 831 (mere refusal to answer questions does not constitute an act under R.C. 2921.31)
City of Hamilton v. Hamm, 33 Ohio App.3d 175 (discussing act requirement for obstruction)
Columbus v. Michel, 55 Ohio App.2d 46 (refusal alone insufficient for obstruction)
State v. Davis, 140 Ohio App.3d 751 (fleeing from officers can be an affirmative act under R.C. 2921.31)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest-weight standard and court as thirteenth juror)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (framework for manifest-weight review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (applying Strickland in Ohio)
State v. Chaffin, 30 Ohio St.2d 13 (Eighth Amendment disproportionality principle)
State v. Hamann, 90 Ohio App.3d 654 (sentence proportionality analysis)