State v. Stark, 2017 Ohio 873

Defendant David Stark was charged with one count of domestic violence after the mother of his child reported he blocked her exit, placed both hands on her neck, squeezed, threatened to kill her, and prevented her from leaving with their daughter.
The victim immediately drove to the police station, reported the incident, and a deputy photographed abrasion-like marks on her neck about an hour later.
Stark elected a jury trial; he testified he never choked or threatened the victim, only held their child while arguing and then allowed them to leave.
Stark’s mother testified generally about his temperament but did not testify to the victim’s character at trial (the court excluded such testimony).
The jury found Stark guilty; the municipal court sentenced him to jail and two years of community control.
Stark appealed, raising sufficiency of the evidence, manifest-weight, and evidentiary rulings under Evid.R. 404(A)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove Stark knowingly caused or attempted physical harm	State: Victim testimony of choking, threats, and deputy’s photos of neck abrasions are sufficient	Stark: He only tried to stop the victim from leaving; he did not choke or knowingly cause harm	Conviction supported — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational trier of fact could find elements proven (sufficiency overruled).
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: Victim credible and injuries consistent with choking	Stark: Conflicting testimony and alternative explanations (crying caused marks); jury lost its way	Court: Not an exceptional case; jury reasonably believed victim; conviction not against manifest weight.
Exclusion of testimony about victim’s violent character (Evid.R. 404(A)(2))	State: Evidence of victim’s character irrelevant absent claim of self-defense or provocation	Stark: Mother would have testified victim tends to "fly off the handle" and is aggressive	Court: No abuse of discretion — Stark denied any altercation and did not claim self-defense, so victim-character evidence was not pertinent and properly excluded.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review) (Ohio)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest-weight standard) (Ohio)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (role of appellate court in weight review) (Ohio)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard) (Ohio)
Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (review of evidentiary rulings) (Ohio)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (appellate role as thirteenth juror in weight review) (U.S.)
State v. Lee, 158 Ohio App.3d 129 (distinguishing sufficiency from weight) (Ohio)