State v. Gomez, 2011 Ohio 5475

Gomez was indicted July 23, 2009 for domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(A)(B) based on knowledge that the victim was pregnant; a criminal temporary protection order was issued July 29, 2009 listing the victim's address as 571 Lynnfield Street, Lynn, MA.
At trial, witnesses observed a confrontation; the victim testified Gomez knew she was pregnant and choked her, causing injuries, with police and eye witnesses describing the scene.
The victim identified Gomez’s address and stated shared residence; Gomez admitted the pregnancy and presence with the victim on a trucking trip, with hotel stays and meals arranged.
The jury found Gomez guilty of domestic violence and that he knew the victim was pregnant; Crim.R. 29 motions were denied.
Gomez and the State filed timely appeals; the appellate court affirmed Gomez’s conviction, reversed the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
The court held that a mandatory prison term should have been imposed under R.C. 2919.25(D) despite statutory drafting defects, and remanded for sentencing consistent with the decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove domestic violence	State argued evidence showed Gomez choked a pregnant partner and cohabited with her.	Gomez argued the State failed to prove the victim was a family/household member.	Sufficiency found: reasonable mind could convict; cohabitation shown via shared address, care, and relationship.
Whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence	State contends weight supports conviction given witnesses and admissions.	Gomez claims the record shows a different weight of evidence and possible lack of living-together proof.	Not against the manifest weight; trial court did not lose its way given the record as a whole.
Mandatory prison term under R.C. 2919.25(D)	State argues court erred by not imposing the mandatory term of at least six months.	Gomez argues the statute’s division (A)(6) reference is erroneous; argues no mandatory term.	Trial court erred; the statute’s intent requires a mandatory term; remand for sentencing consistent with decision.

Jenks v. United States, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review: whether evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Galloway, 9th Dist. No. 19752 (2001) (appellate sufficiency framework; review of evidence in favor of the State)
State v. Walker, No. 20559 (2001) (sufficiency burden of production)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (concurrence on sufficiency and weigh considerations)
State v. Sudderth, 2009-Ohio-3363 (2009) (cohabitation elements in domestic violence statute)
State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459 (1997) (definition of cohabitation; factors for shared residency and relationship)
State v. Crowe, 2005-Ohio-4082 (2005) (weight of the evidence and credibility considerations)
State v. Cross, 2011-Ohio-3250 (2011) (statutory interpretation corrections in sentencing provisions; mandatory term application)
Wickens v. Dunn, 71 Ohio App.2d 177 (1942) (court may correct textual errors to fulfill legislative intent in sentencing)