State v. Wright
2014 Ohio 1073
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Derrick Alfonzo Wright was indicted on three counts (weapon under disability, carrying a concealed weapon, and menacing by stalking); jury acquitted him on the weapons charges and convicted him of menacing by stalking. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
- Victim Lashawn Pate, an RTA bus driver, testified that Wright began riding her bus after she rejected his advances and escalated from compliments to religious ranting and a direct threat in November 2012 that included a statement about shooting her in the head while revealing what she perceived as a gun.
- During that November encounter Wright allegedly tried to force Pate off the bus, told her he had been watching her and knew her schedule, and said “I’m going to get you. You mine.” Pate reported the incident and changed routes.
- In January 2013 Wright located Pate on her new route on more than one occasion, made remarks such as “There’s my baby. I’ve been looking for you,” and otherwise pursued or spoke with her, which Pate testified caused fear and mental distress given the earlier threat.
- The prosecution relied on these multiple encounters (November through January) to prove a “pattern of conduct” under R.C. 2903.211 and that Wright knowingly caused Pate to believe he would cause physical harm or cause mental distress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a menacing-by-stalking conviction (R.C. 2903.211(A)(1)) | State: Three related encounters over ~6 weeks showed a “pattern of conduct” that knowingly caused Pate to fear harm and suffer mental distress | Wright: Incidents were isolated or nonthreatening (later comments were flirtation); no pattern closely related in time; insufficient proof of threats beyond November incident | Court: Sufficient evidence — jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Wright’s repeated conduct created a pattern causing fear and mental distress; Crim.R. 29 motion properly denied |
| Whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | State: Victim’s testimony credible; jury entitled to weigh credibility; cumulative interactions supported conviction | Wright: Victim uncorroborated; later interactions nonthreatening; conviction shocks the conscience | Court: Not against manifest weight — credibility issues are for the jury; record does not show a miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255, 847 N.E.2d 386 (Ohio 2006) (sufficiency standard and Crim.R. 29 analysis)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight standard)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Middletown v. Jones, 167 Ohio App.3d 679, 856 N.E.2d 1003 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (treat every action in determining a "pattern of conduct")
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (describing the manifest-miscarriage standard)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight of evidence are jury functions)