State v. Patterson
2017 Ohio 8196
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Patterson (defendant) entered ex-wife J.P.’s Elyria apartment early morning, confronted J.P.’s boyfriend R.W.; knives were involved and R.W. left the premises.
- Police responded; officers informed Patterson he would be arrested, after which he struggled and had to be tasered twice before officers could restrain him.
- Grand jury indicted Patterson on two counts of aggravated burglary (first-degree felonies), obstructing official business (felony of the fifth degree if risk of physical harm), aggravated menacing (misdemeanor of the first degree), domestic violence (misdemeanor), and resisting arrest (misdemeanor of the second degree).
- Crim.R. 29 motion granted as to domestic violence; jury acquitted Patterson of aggravated burglary counts but convicted him of obstructing official business, aggravated menacing, and resisting arrest.
- Court sentenced Patterson to concurrent terms: 11 months (obstructing), 60 days (aggravated menacing), 30 days (resisting). Patterson appealed raising sufficiency/manifest-weight and allied-offenses claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Patterson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — did evidence show obstructing official business rose to felony (risk of physical harm)? | Officers testified Patterson became increasingly aggressive, resisted, flailed, attempted to close door on officers, and required multiple officers and taser use — creating a risk of harm. | Patterson argued he opened the door, was not armed, did not injure officers, complied after taser, so no risk of physical harm to elevate the charge. | Court: Sufficient evidence of risk of physical harm; conviction upheld. |
| Sufficiency — venue proved beyond reasonable doubt? | State points to testimony locating the incident at a Middle Avenue Elyria address and officers' employment with Elyria PD in Lorain County. | Patterson argued no witness expressly stated the offenses occurred in Ohio, so venue not proved. | Court: Venue proven by reasonable inference from testimony; no plain error. |
| Manifest weight challenge to convictions | State relied on credibility of officers and consistency of testimony about resistance and taser deployment. | Patterson maintained convictions were against manifest weight (primarily asserting venue issue). | Court: Manifest weight claim rejected; testimony supported verdicts. |
| Allied-offenses (obstructing official business vs. resisting arrest) — should they merge? | State argued offenses were of dissimilar import or committed with separate animus so separate convictions permissible. | Patterson argued the convictions arose from the same conduct and were allied offenses of similar import, so only one conviction should stand. | Court: Patterson forfeited the issue by not raising it at sentencing; he did not develop a plain-error argument on appeal, so claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain-error test under Crim.R. 52(B))
- State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St.3d 475 (1983) (State must prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt absent waiver)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain-error doctrine to be invoked cautiously)
- State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427 (2013) (R.C. 2941.25 governs allied-offenses analysis)
- State v. Childs, 88 Ohio St.3d 558 (2000) (R.C. 2941.25 as primary indicator of legislative intent on multiple punishments)