State v. Herrell
2017 Ohio 7109
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michael Herrell was tried in Lucas County for one count of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1),(D)) after his wife was found beaten and bloodied in their apartment.
- Victim awoke with severe head wounds and a broken arm, had no reliable memory of the attack, and initially gave varying explanations while hospitalized.
- A blood‑smeared hammer with both Herrell’s and the victim’s DNA was recovered under a mattress; bloody clothes and a preexisting letter describing past abuse by Herrell were also found.
- The apartment required a key to lock; the daughter left that morning and found the apartment locked with no sign of forced entry; Herrell had left and did not return or contact the family during the investigation.
- Jury was instructed on “flight” and convicted Herrell of second‑degree felonious assault; he appealed, raising manifest‑weight, sufficiency (Crim.R. 29), and improper flight instruction claims.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Herrell's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Circumstantial and physical evidence (DNA on hammer, locked apartment, victim ID, history of abuse, Herrell’s disappearance) support conviction | Evidence inconsistent and victim confused; conviction not supported by greater weight of credible evidence | Affirmed — weight favors conviction; no manifest miscarriage of justice |
| Whether the trial court erred denying Crim.R. 29 motion (sufficiency) | Evidence, viewed in prosecution’s favor, permits a rational jury to find Herrell knowingly caused serious physical harm | Evidence insufficient to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed — evidence legally sufficient for conviction |
| Whether flight instruction was improper | Record supported flight inference: Herrell left scene, locked apartment, took phone/keys, left bloody clothes — supports consciousness of guilt instruction | No adequate factual basis for flight instruction | Affirmed — instruction applicable and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing manifest‑weight challenges)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest‑weight standards)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997) (application of Jenks standard)
- State v. Wolons, 44 Ohio St.3d 64 (1989) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for jury instructions)
- State v. Price, 60 Ohio St.2d 136 (1979) (jury instructions must be viewed in context of overall charge)
- State v. Walker, 55 Ohio St.2d 208 (1978) (appellate court will not reassess witness credibility on sufficiency review)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (appellate "thirteenth juror" role in manifest‑weight review)
- State v. Endicott, 99 Ohio App.3d 688 (1994) (definition of abuse of discretion for jury instruction rulings)