State v. McManaway, 2022 Ohio 2086

Background

Kameron McManaway was charged with two counts of endangering children and one count of domestic violence after a July 1, 2020 incident while she and the victim were in the victim’s car with McManaway’s two young children present.
The victim and McManaway had dated ~4 months and lived together; they shared household tasks and childcare.
The victim confronted McManaway about contact with a former boyfriend; the parties’ accounts diverged: the victim said McManaway punched and bit him and tried to pull the key from the ignition; McManaway claimed the victim grabbed her and she bit and smacked him in response.
Police responded after the victim called 911; photos of the victim’s swollen eye and a bite mark were introduced.
A jury acquitted McManaway of the child-endangering counts but convicted her of domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(A).
McManaway appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of evidence re: cohabitation/household-member status, (2) manifest-weight, (3) failure to instruct on defense of others (plain error), and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel. The Ninth District affirmed.

Issues

Issue	McManaway's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Sufficiency — was there evidence she and victim were "household members"?	Evidence did not show the victim “resided” with her or that they cohabited on an ongoing basis.	Victim’s testimony showed living together, shared chores, childcare, bedroom, and most of his belongings at her house — meeting cohabitation/household-member definitions.	Affirmed — sufficient evidence of cohabitation/household-member status.
2. Manifest weight — was the conviction against the weight of the evidence?	Her actions were reasonable self-defense given the victim’s conduct (grabbing, yelling, endangering children).	Credibility disputes favored the victim; jury could reject McManaway’s version; evidence supported conviction.	Affirmed — not an exceptional case warranting reversal on manifest weight.
3. Jury instruction — plain error for failure to give a defense-of-others instruction?	Trial court should have instructed on defense of others (non-deadly force) because children were present and scared.	No evidence McManaway acted to defend her children; no instruction warranted.	Affirmed — no plain error; no evidence supported defense-of-others instruction.
4. Ineffective assistance — counsel failed to object to instructions and did not move for acquittal (Crim.R. 29)?	Counsel’s failures deprived her of effective representation and harmed her defense.	No prejudice: the instruction omission was not error, and sufficiency exists so a Crim.R. 29 motion would not likely change outcome.	Affirmed — counsel not ineffective under Strickland; no reasonable probability of a different result.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standards for reviewing convictions for sufficiency and manifest weight)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459 (1997) (elements and factors for cohabitation)
State v. McGlothan, 138 Ohio St.3d 146 (2014) (sharing financial/familial responsibilities not required when parties actually live together)
State v. Carswell, 114 Ohio St.3d 210 (2007) (cohabitation arises from mutual decision to share life responsibilities)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio application of ineffective-assistance standard)
Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585 (1991) (trial courts should only instruct on issues supported by the evidence)
Williford v. State, 49 Ohio St.3d 247 (1990) (self-defense/defense-of-others doctrine)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (manifest-weight review standard)