State v. Fry
2017 Ohio 9077
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In October 2015 the State charged Barbara Fry with domestic violence for an October 17, 2015 altercation with her son; trial by jury occurred in March 2016.
- Allegations included Fry throwing her son to the ground, being on top of him, and placing hands around his neck; the son testified he was choked "very hard."
- Witnesses included a neighbor who heard screams and observed an assault, a friend who saw Fry on top of the son, and the responding officer who recorded admissions and statements at the scene.
- Fry testified she did not hit her son, claimed he had punched her in the face and grabbed her throat, and asserted she acted in self-defense while guiding him back into the house.
- The jury found Fry guilty; she appealed raising two issues: (1) insufficiency/manifest weight of the evidence and (2) erroneous jury instruction on self-defense.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and rejected both assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Fry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict of domestic violence | Evidence (victim, neighbor, friend) shows Fry knowingly caused physical harm | Evidence conflicted; victim intoxicated, alternative versions, Fry’s testimony denied striking son | Affirmed — evidence sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Jury verdict is supported by witness credibility and testimony | Conflicting testimony, victim’s intoxication/memory issues, and Fry’s account show verdict against manifest weight | Affirmed — no exceptional case where jury clearly lost its way |
| Jury instruction on self-defense (alleged erroneous wording) | N/A (court instructed per pattern but used older phrasing) | Instruction misstated law by implying belief was "mistaken," preventing jury from assessing honest reasonable belief of imminent harm | Affirmed — no plain error; instruction still allowed acquittal if jury found honest belief, mistaken or not |
| Standard of review for unobjected instruction | N/A | Trial court erred but Fry failed to object, limiting review to plain error | Affirmed — plain error not shown; reversal would require obvious error causing manifest miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest weight review)
- Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Otten v. Ohio, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (manifest weight review and when reversal is appropriate)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion defined)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982) (appellate court as "thirteenth juror" when reviewing weight issues)
- State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (Ohio 2015) (standard of review for refusal to give requested jury instruction)