State v. AndersonState v. Anderson
Rendered on May 24, 2024
DAVID R. MILES, Attorney for Appellant
ALISSA SCHRINER, Attorney for Appellee
LEWIS, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Eric Anderson appeals from his conviction for aggravated menacing following a bench trial in the Dayton Municipal Court. Anderson contends that the trial court‘s judgment was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence because he was more credible than the complaining witness. For the following reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the trial
I. Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On May 5, 2023, a criminal complaint was filed in Dayton Municipal Court alleging that Anderson had committed the offense of aggravated menacing, a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of
{¶ 3} A bench trial was held on August 21, 2023. Steve Smith, the information technology manager at the Montgomery County Sheriff‘s Office, testified first. Tr. 5-7. He verified that the video recording presented by the State was a true and accurate recording from cameras positioned on Second Street in downtown Dayton.
{¶ 4} Bruce May testified next. Id. at 7-51. May was a cold case investigator with the Dayton Police Department and was the complaining witness in this case. He had worked for over 40 years in law enforcement. On the morning of May 4, 2023, shortly before 8:00 a.m., May was traveling northbound on Main Street in downtown Dayton. After passing through some construction, May noticed Anderson driving a white truck and coming up next to his vehicle on Main Street. May eventually turned left onto Monument Street and then left onto Ludlow Street. As he turned onto Ludlow Street, May noticed in his rear-view mirror that Anderson‘s vehicle was turning onto Monument Street. As he proceeded down Ludlow, May turned right onto Second Street. He then stopped in the right-hand lane at the first stop light on Second Street. At that time, Anderson‘s
{¶ 5} The traffic light changed to green, and May proceeded to pull forward away from the light. As he did so, May took his gun out of his pocket and put it in a more accessible place in case he needed it. May crossed Perry Street and slowed down behind vehicles that were waiting to turn into a parking lot. Anderson passed by May‘s vehicle and again yelled at May while raising his middle finger at him. Anderson did a U-turn and headed in the opposite direction on Second Street. May took out his cell phone and took a picture of Anderson‘s vehicle. Anderson then did another U-turn and approached May‘s vehicle from the rear. May decided to park to try to de-escalate the situation. After parking, May exited his truck and entered property that Anderson could not access with his vehicle. May saw Anderson pointing something black at him but could not determine what it was. May ultimately lost sight of Anderson and did not see him again that day. May then filed a police report about the incident.
{¶ 6} May testified that Anderson was uncontrollable and argumentative during their brief interaction. May made the decision to park in what was not his normal parking spot in order to get to safety and de-escalate the situation more quickly. May was fearful
{¶ 7} Anderson testified last at the trial. Tr. 53-60. He was 63 years old at the time of the trial. On the morning of May 4, 2023, Anderson was heading home after dropping off a friend. According to Anderson, he was driving his white truck in downtown Dayton when May drove left of center and cut off Anderson‘s vehicle. This caused Anderson to have road rage. Anderson testified that people cut him off three or four times a day when he drives his truck. As a result of being cut off, Anderson repeatedly cursed at May and gave him the middle finger. He testified that he does the same thing when other people cut him off on the road. Anderson denied that he had threatened May. Rather, he stated that he said the following to May:
I remember exactly what I said. Again, I told him – I gave him the finger, I told him he was – I called him an M.F. or S.O.B. and I told him he don‘t need to be driving no truck no better than that if you can‘t drive. I also told him that I used to work for G.M. and I never told him I retired. I been laid off four or five years now and I know what I‘m doing and I know when people do it on purpose. That‘s what I told him.
Id. at 59-60.
{¶ 8} Anderson stated that he was too old to be threatening others. He explained that he did not own a gun and he did not have a cell phone with him during the incident.
{¶ 9} On September 5, 2023, the trial court found Anderson guilty of aggravated menacing. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Anderson to 180 days in jail but suspended all 180 days. Anderson was placed on supervised probation for up to one year with the conditions that he complete the MAD Program through the probation department and comply with any treatment through the Drew Health Center. The trial court imposed a fine of $25 plus court costs. Anderson filed a timely appeal from the trial court‘s judgment.
II. Anderson‘s Conviction Was Supported by Sufficient Evidence and Was Not Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶ 10} Anderson raises the following two assignments of error:
APPELLANT‘S CONVICTION FOR AGGRAVATED MENACING IS BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
APPELLANT‘S CONVICTION FOR AGGRAVATED MENACING IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 11} Anderson‘s assignments of error assert that his conviction for aggravated menacing was against the manifest weight of the evidence and not supported by sufficient evidence. Because these assignments of error are interrelated, we will address them together.
{¶ 12} “The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). “An appellate court‘s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. “The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
{¶ 13} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “the court does not engage in a determination of the witnesses’ credibility.” State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123, 139, 694 N.E.2d 916 (1998), citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence presented, if believed, was sufficient to support the conviction. State v. Jones, 166 Ohio St.3d 85, 2021-Ohio-3311, 182 N.E.3d 1161, ¶ 16, citing Thompkins at 390. The verdict will not be disturbed on appeal unless “the appellate court finds that reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier-of-fact.” State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 430, 683 N.E.2d 1096 (1997), citing Jenks at 273.
{¶ 14} “[A] weight of the evidence argument challenges the believability of the evidence and asks which of the competing inferences suggested by the evidence is more believable or persuasive.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 12. When evaluating whether a conviction is against the
{¶ 15} Based on the record before us, we must conclude that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Anderson was charged with and found guilty of aggravated menacing in violation of
{¶ 17} The cases cited by Anderson are inapposite to the facts before us in this appeal. In accordance with
{¶ 18} Finally, Anderson argues that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because his “trial testimony was more credible than witness May.” Appellant‘s Brief, p. 7. May testified in detail how the events unfolded on the morning of May 4, 2023, and what effect Anderson‘s actions had on May. The only real dispute in the record was over what exactly Anderson said to May when they both were stopped at the red light on Second Street just east of Perry Street. May testified that Anderson had
{¶ 19} The assignments of error are overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 20} Having overruled both of Anderson‘s assignments of error, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
EPLEY, P.J. and TUCKER, J., concur.