State v. Getzinger
2013 Ohio 2146
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Getzinger appeals Napoleon Municipal Court’s guilty verdict for disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(2) with a $150 fine.
- Complaint (July 14, 2011) alleged reckless conduct causing inconvenience by offensive noise/utterance or gross language, tracking the statute.
- Getzinger moved to dismiss (Aug. 29, 2011) arguing the complaint lacked the “fighting words” element and Crim.R. 3 notice.
- Trial court held trial (Oct. 13, 2011); after evidence, seven-day briefing period on the motion.
- Nov. 15, 2011 the court overruled the motion to dismiss, finding proof on all elements; Dec. 22, 2011 sentenced Getzinger to $150 fine.
- Audio recording was compromised; Aug. 2012 App.R. 9(C) process attempted to supplement the record, with disputes over proper trial-court approval and the sufficiency of the evidentiary record to support appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint failed to allege all elements of 2917.11(A)(2). | Getzinger argues lack of ‘fighting words’ element makes complaint constitutionally infirm. | State contends the complaint tracked the statute and Hoffman did not require an explicit fight words element. | First assignment overruled; complaint satisfied elements and Hoffman standard not requiring extra element in the complaint. |
| Whether the record supports the conviction given lack of transcript; validity of App.R. 9(C) statement. | Getzinger contends lack of proper transcription requires reversal or acceptance of the 9(C) statement. | State asserts any deficiencies in the 9(C) statement were harmless, and record supports conviction. | Second assignment overruled; record deemed insufficient to undermine conviction due to deficient procedure for approving the Statement of Evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hoffman, 379 N.E.2d 635 (1979) (established fighting-words standard under 2917.11(A)(2))
- State v. Childs, 88 Ohio St.3d 194 (2000) (indictment may track statute language without specifying every element)
- State v. Murphy, 65 Ohio St.3d 554 (1992) (indictment sufficiency when language mirrors statute)
- Knapp v. Edwards Labs, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (presumption of validity of judgment when no transcript)
- Joiner v. Illuminating Co., 55 Ohio App.2d 187 (1978) (standards for settlement of evidence statements under App.R. 9(C))
- Aurora v. Belinger, 180 Ohio App.3d 178 (2008) (trial court must approve proposed statements of evidence under App.R. 9(C))
- King v. Plaster, 71 Ohio App.3d 360 (1991) (presumption against unsigned statements of evidence)