State v. Hammock
2012 Ohio 419
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hammock was convicted of harassment with a bodily substance under R.C. 2921.38(B) after spitting toward Officer Drerup during a traffic-stop dispute near a bar.
- Three police officers testified Hammock spit in Drerup’s face; Hammock testified she did not spit and defense witnesses corroborated her denial.
- Jury found Hammock guilty of a fifth-degree felony; trial court imposed community control including 90 days in jail (three 30-day increments), stayed pending appeal.
- Hammock challenged the statute as unconstitutionally vague as applied to her saliva (a ‘bodily substance’).
- The trial court and appellate court addressed Hammock’s arguments regarding vagueness, sufficiency of evidence, and weight of the evidence.
- Issue-focused review on appeal upheld the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of R.C. 2921.38(B) as applied | Hammock argues ‘another bodily substance’ is vague and saliva is not identified. | Hammock contends statute lacks standard; ambiguous about which substance is covered. | Statute read as catch-all is not vague; upheld. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State claims sufficient evidence showed intent to harass via expelling saliva on officer. | Hammock asserts insufficiency; defense witnesses credibility undermines evidence. | Evidence sufficiently establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Weight of the evidence | State contends jury credibility determinations favor officers. | Hammock argues defense witnesses credibility should prevail. | Conviction not against the weight of the evidence; jury credibility supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cane Task Force v. Nahum, 159 Ohio App.3d 579 (2005-Ohio-300) (vagueness standard requires no standard of conduct is specified at all)
- State v. Anderson, 57 Ohio St.3d 168 (1991) (clarity of conduct expected under a statute)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997-Ohio-52) (weight-of-the-evidence review framework)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (manifest weight standard and appellate deference to juries)
- State v. Hawn, 138 Ohio App.3d 449 (2000) (sufficiency standard for criminal conviction review)