State v. Rice
2016 Ohio 7185
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim DeLynn Finley allowed Caleb Rice’s girlfriend to stay in her apartment; Rice and the girlfriend later refused to leave and allegedly confined/intimidated Finley for weeks.
- In late October 2015 Rice allegedly grabbed Finley by the hair, repeatedly slammed her head into a wall (creating a hole) and ripped out a clump of hair, leaving a permanent bald spot; Finley did not seek medical attention.
- On November 8, 2015 Rice allegedly assaulted Ashleigh Thomas; Thomas fled, was found distraught by police and implicated Rice.
- A grand jury indicted Rice on two counts of felonious assault and two counts of domestic violence; the state later dismissed the domestic-violence count as to Finley before trial.
- Jury verdicts: guilty of felonious assault (Finley) and domestic violence (Thomas); not guilty of felonious assault (Thomas).
- Trial court imposed an aggregate 13-year prison sentence; Rice appealed raising three assignments of error (plea hearing termination, sufficiency/weight of evidence for felonious assault, and admission of hearsay/excited-utterance testimony).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by terminating Rice’s plea hearing and refusing the plea. | Court properly ensured plea voluntariness; discretion to recess/decline plea. | Rice contends the court abruptly ended the colloquy and should have probed further to secure a voluntary plea. | No abuse of discretion; court legitimately questioned voluntariness after Rice failed to respond during colloquy and recessed; no objection to recess at the time. |
| 2) Whether felonious-assault conviction (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)) as to Finley was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of evidence. | State: testimony, photo of bald spot, wet plaster in wall, witness who repaired hole, and Rice’s letter corroborate serious physical harm and credibility. | Rice: Finley’s failure to report or seek medical care and alleged inconsistencies undermine credibility and proof of "serious physical harm." | Affirmed. Evidence (hair ripped out, permanent bald spot, head slammed into wall, fresh hole) supports serious physical harm; jury credibility determinations not disturbed. |
| 3) Whether admitting Officer Herren’s testimony recounting Thomas’s out‑of‑court statements violated hearsay rules. | State: Thomas’s statements were excited utterances made shortly after attack while she was hysterical and physically distressed; admissible under Evid.R. 803(2). | Rice: Enough time passed that the statements were reflective, not impulsive, so the excited-utterance exception does not apply. | No abuse of discretion. Officer encountered Thomas within minutes; her demeanor (crying, hysterical, physical signs) supported admission as excited utterance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (clarifies standards for sufficiency of the evidence versus manifest-weight review and limits on granting new trials)