State v. Horton, 2012 Ohio 3340

Defendant Demetrius Horton was indicted in Feb. 2011 for felonious assault, disrupting public services, two counts of domestic violence, and later added intimidation of a crime victim; all involving the same girlfriend as victim.
A jury trial led to dismissal of the January 11, 2011 felonious assault charge; Horton was convicted of felonious assault and one January 18, 2011 domestic violence count, with other charges acquitted.
He was sentenced to a total of seven years in prison.
The State called Jill Bunnell, R.N., a domestic violence nurse examiner, to testify about the cycle of violence; the defense objected to expert designation.
Bunnell testified to qualifications and the cycle of violence; the trial court allowed questioning without formal expert declaration.
The defense cross-examined Bunnell; Horton argues the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence based on credibility issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of Bunnell as expert without formal designation was reversible error	Horton argues trial court erred by not declaring Bunnell an expert.	Horton contends lack of expert declaration prejudiced the defense.	No reversible error; court did not abuse discretion
Whether the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence	State argues sufficient credible evidence supports felonious assault and domestic violence.	Horton contends victim credibility undermines conviction.	Convictions not against the manifest weight

State v. Haines, 112 Ohio St.3d 393 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006) (domestic violence expert testimony scope and limits)
State v. McGlown, 2009-Ohio-2160 (Ohio 6th Dist. 2009) (admissibility of expert testimony abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (weight-of-the-evidence standard)
Andrews, 2010-Ohio-6126 (9th Dist. 2010) (conflicting testimony; credibility assessment for weight of evidence)
United States v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 690 (6th Cir. 2007) (expert testimony credibility considerations in domestic violence contexts)