State v. Gipp, 2017 Ohio 8907

Defendant Steven Gipp was charged with two counts of domestic violence arising from a January 21, 2017 incident at the apartment he shared with his fiancée, who was pregnant.
Counts alleged (1) fifth-degree felony based on victim’s pregnancy and (2) fourth-degree felony based on defendant’s prior domestic-violence conviction; the prior was stipulated at trial.
At bench trial, police and a detective testified; the detective reported the defendant admitted arguing while intoxicated but denied physical contact.
The complainant (fiancée) was brought to court on a material-witness warrant; she initially said the incident was only verbal and that she did not want to incriminate Gipp.
The prosecutor moved to declare the complainant a hostile witness; court allowed it. Under leading questioning she recanted the purely-verbal account and testified that both parties ‘‘tussled,’’ that Gipp struck her with fists and with objects (table, mirror), and that she had scrapes on her face.
The trial court convicted Gipp on both counts, merged them, and sentenced him on the fourth-degree-felony count to nine months’ imprisonment; Gipp appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Gipp knowingly caused physical harm (R.C. 2919.25(A))	State: complainant’s testimony that Gipp hit her with fists and objects, plus visible scrapes, is sufficient.	Gipp: altercation was mutual; complainant admitted both hit each other; no independent injuries to Gipp; officer saw no marks on table/mirror.	Conviction upheld: evidence legally sufficient when viewed in State’s favor.
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: trial court as factfinder could credit victim’s testimony that Gipp hit her and discredit her assertions of mutual fighting.	Gipp: whole record supports mutual fight and undermines State’s proof; conviction against weight.	Affirmed: trial court did not clearly lose its way; not a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Hostile-witness determination for complainant	State: complainant’s trial testimony (‘‘only verbal’’) materially contradicted prior statements and surprised prosecutor, warranting hostile-witness treatment.	Gipp: State failed to show surprise; court erred in declaring witness hostile.	No abuse of discretion: court permissibly found surprise/contradiction and allowed leading questions.
Sentencing/merger and election by State	State proceeded on the fourth-degree count after merger; sentence imposed.	Gipp did not successfully challenge merger/election/sentence on appeal.	Affirmed: sentencing and election not disturbed on appeal.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (defines sufficiency review — reasonable mind could convict when evidence, viewed in favor of State, supports elements)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (explains manifest-weight standard — reversal only for exceptional cases where justice requires)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (weight-of-evidence reversal is reserved for exceptional cases)
State v. Hawn, 138 Ohio App.3d 449 (distinguishes sufficiency review; cited for sufficiency principles)
State v. Johnson, 55 N.E.3d 648 (discusses hostile-witness doctrine and requirement of surprise/affirmative damage)