2012 Ohio 3287
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Morris was convicted of disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(2) after a late-night incident with police near a hospital.
- Two Dayton police officers found Morris unconscious in a front yard; he was awakened and began screaming obscenities at them.
- He yelled at Officer Staples within six inches of her face, expressing threatening and annoying conduct.
- A loud four-to-five minute outburst drew bystander attention and led to his arrest.
- A bench trial occurred on August 30, 2011; Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal was denied; Morris was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in jail with fines partially suspended.
- Morris timely appealed raising three issues including sufficiency/weight of the evidence and failure to allow allocution before sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/weight of the evidence for disorderly conduct | Morris argues the evidence does not prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. | Morris contends the conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence and insufficient. | Conviction sustained on sufficiency/weight challenges; affirmed the conviction |
| Allocution before sentencing | State concedes error; trial court failed to ask for allocution prior to sentencing. | Morris asserts he was denied Crim.R. 32 allocution rights. | Error sustained; remanded for resentencing to allow allocution |
| Effect of remand on sentencing | State did not argue against remand for allocution. | Morris seeks proper allocution before resentencing. | Remand for resentencing to permit allocution; conviction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thaler, 2008-Ohio-5525 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22578 (2008)) (applies standard for Crim.R. 29 sufficiency review)
- State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio St.3d 1997) (sufficiency standard: rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (establishes the standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Semler, 90 Ohio App.3d 369, 629 N.E.2d 481 (1993) (distinguishes fighting-words analysis from mere obscenity toward officers)
- State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 738 N.E.2d 1178 (2000) (allocution requirement before sentencing; harmless error inquiry)
- State v. Reynolds, 687 N.E.2d 1358 (1998) (allocution error taint and waiver considerations)
- State v. Collier, 2007-Ohio-6349 (2d Dist. Clark Nos. 2006 CA 102, 2006 CA 104) (allocution rights interpretation and sentencing procedures)
- State v. Hoffman, 378 N.E.2d 239 (1979) (fighting-words concept in disorderly conduct)