State v. Seibert
2021 Ohio 3069
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Consolidated appeal of two Wayne County cases arising from incidents on Oct. 20, 2019 (First Case) and Nov. 3, 2019 (Second Case) involving Drew Seibert, his father ("Father"), and neighbor Jeffrey.
- First Case (jury trial): charged with aggravated menacing and domestic violence arising from Father’s testimony that Seibert threatened to kill him; jury convicted Seibert of aggravated menacing and acquitted on domestic violence.
- Second Case (bench trial): charged with assault, aggravated menacing, obstructing official business, domestic violence, and disorderly conduct after a later confrontation in which Jeffrey was pushed and injured and Seibert resisted arrest; trial court convicted on all counts.
- Key factual points: threats to kill were made; Jeffrey testified Seibert pushed him causing a head scratch; officers testified Seibert refused orders, delayed arrest ~30 minutes, and required force to effect arrest.
- Procedural posture: Seibert appealed, raising sufficiency/manifest-weight challenges to multiple convictions and arguing the trial court erred in denying an oral motion for mistrial in the First Case.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Seibert's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated menacing (First Case) | State: Father’s testimony that Seibert said he would kill him and that Father believed the threat satisfied aggravated menacing elements | Seibert: Father’s fear was for Seibert’s safety too, so belief he would be seriously harmed was not proven | Court: Affirmed — evidence sufficient when viewed in State's favor (threat to kill supports element) |
| Manifest weight of evidence for aggravated menacing (First Case) | State: jury credibility determinations proper; conflicts minor | Seibert: testimony conflicts (who called police first) and inconsistent verdicts show jury lost its way | Court: Affirmed — jury was best trier of credibility; inconsistency claim insufficient and forfeited |
| Sufficiency/weight for assault (Second Case) | State: Jeffrey’s testimony that Seibert pushed him causing injury supports assault | Seibert: push may have been accidental or inconsistent testimony ("slugged" v. pushed) | Court: Affirmed — testimony supports knowing causing of physical harm; jury free to credit Jeffrey |
| Sufficiency/weight for aggravated menacing (Second Case) | State: Jeffrey heard a kill threat and reasonably believed Seibert could act | Seibert: Jeffrey’s response suggests he didn’t actually believe threat | Court: Affirmed — jury/trier could find Jeffrey believed threat despite his verbal response |
| Sufficiency for obstructing official business (Second Case) | State: Repeated refusal to comply created significant delay and impeded officers’ duties | Seibert: Mere noncompliance is not an affirmative act required for obstruction | Court: Affirmed — noncompliance that significantly delays and impedes officers can constitute obstruction |
| Mistrial denial (First Case) | State: any references to second incident were brief/inadvertent and cured by instruction | Seibert: Witnesses and prosecutor referred to facts from the Second Case, prejudicing jury | Court: Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; limiting instruction given or declined strategically; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency inquiry—view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (manifest-weight standard; entire record and credibility assessment)
- North Ridgeville v. Reichbaum, 112 Ohio App.3d 79 (9th Dist. 1996) (discussion that obstruction generally requires an affirmative act)
- State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 (Ohio 2014) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)