State v. Harvey
2023 Ohio 4454
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background:
- At a November 2022 school basketball game, Melissa Harvey confronted J.L. (her soon-to-be ex-husband’s girlfriend) during a heated exchange; J.L. recorded part of the incident on her phone.
- Video and testimony showed Harvey moving toward J.L., getting very close, and swinging her right arm while Julie (Harvey’s sister) restrained Harvey’s arms; no contact was made.
- J.L. and Ronny (Harvey’s estranged husband) testified they believed Harvey would have struck J.L. but for the restraint; J.L. said she had “no doubt” Harvey intended harm.
- Harvey testified she only leaned in and considered placing a hand on J.L.’s knee, denied attempting to hit or threaten J.L., and stressed ongoing animosity between them.
- The Toledo Municipal Court found Harvey guilty of menacing (R.C. 2903.22(A)(1)), denied two Crim.R. 29 motions, suspended jail time, imposed probation, and ordered no contact with J.L.
- Harvey appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence (Crim.R. 29) and (2) conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to deny Crim.R. 29 motion (menacing: knowingly caused victim to believe she would cause physical harm) | City: Video and testimony show Harvey knowingly lunged/swam at J.L.; J.L. and Ronny believed Harvey would hit her | Harvey: Victim wasn’t genuinely afraid (laughed, didn’t leave), restraint prevented harm, inconsistent statements to police | Court: Denial affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a reasonable trier of fact could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | City: Trial court viewed witnesses and video and reasonably credited victim and Ronny’s testimony | Harvey: Longstanding animosity, victim’s laugh and inconsistent statements undermine credibility; no clear hit on video | Court: Affirmed — not an exceptional case; trial court’s credibility findings and inferences supported verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio St.3d 231 (2005) (standard for Crim.R. 29 sufficiency review)
- State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (2006) (Crim.R. 29 denial governed by sufficiency standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest-weight standard and appellate role as thirteenth juror)
- State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997) (sufficiency test: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Walker, 55 Ohio St.2d 208 (1978) (appellate court will not weigh evidence or assess witness credibility in sufficiency review)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (manifest-weight reversal reserved for exceptional cases)
- State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61 (1964) (trial court as sole judge of witness credibility)