{¶ 2} In July 2006, appellant was arrested for domestic violence after an altercation with his wife Carolyn. Appellant was charged with a misdemeanor in the first degree, in *2
violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} At the trial, Carolyn testified that she was folding clothes in the laundry room of their home when appellant confronted her about her relationship with her boss. After an argument, Carolyn testified that appellant threw a drinking glass he had been holding at her, narrowly missing her and shattering against the wall beside her. The shards of broken glass hit Carolyn's legs and feet, causing multiple lacerations and small puncture wounds.
{¶ 4} Appellant also testified and admitted that he was angry over his wife's relationship with her boss and threw the glass down in anger. However, appellant testified that he threw the glass straight down onto the floor and not at Carolyn. Appellant testified that he was approximately five to six feet from Carolyn when he threw the glass.
{¶ 5} Two other witnesses provided accounts to the trial court, including appellant's daughter, who related that she heard an argument and heard the glass shatter, but did not see where it was thrown. Also testifying for the state was Officer Quillan Short of the Hamilton Township Police Department, the responding officer who arrived to assist Carolyn. Officer Short testified that Carolyn was upset and bleeding from her legs and that he observed the shattered glass on the floor and milk from the drinking glass splattered on the wall, although there were no marks on the wall. The state admitted photographs into evidence which depicted the shattered glass and splattered milk. The state argued that the photographs depicted milk splatters which would suggest the glass hit the wall, as Carolyn testified. Appellant's counsel, however, argued that the milk was shown to be running straight down from the wall, indicating that the milk splashed up from the floor where the glass was thrown, as testified to by appellant.
{¶ 6} After hearing the evidence and arguments, the trial court made the following findings: *3
{¶ 7} "I think the physical evidence does reflect, the person it was presented by, Mr. Berry, the glass was slammed down on the ground in the vicinity of his wife. I think the physical evidence does reflect that. However, that's about as far as I would go with that statement, Mr. Berry. Because I think that act was done knowingly, I think that meets the statutory definition of knowingly. You slam the glass down on the ground, the glass shatters and cuts somebody's foot. That's what happens when glass gets thrown down on linoleum floors with concrete underneath. There is a likelihood that that is going to happen. And based upon that, I do think that the state meets their burden of proof on all elements of 2919.25 Section A Domestic Violence."
{¶ 8} The court therefore entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced appellant to six months of community control. Appellant then filed this timely appeal, raising the following assignment of error for our review:
{¶ 9} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING [APPELLANT] GUILTY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE"
{¶ 10} Appellant asserts that the trial court misapplied the statute to the facts of the case and found that appellant's knowing act of slamming the glass onto the floor satisfied the mens rea element of the offense. Appellant further argues that even if the court did make the necessary findings, insufficient evidence was presented to support a finding that appellant was aware that his actions would result in harm to Carolyn.
{¶ 11} R.C.
{¶ 12} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 13} In the case at bar, appellant argues that, although the trial court found that appellant acted knowingly in throwing the glass to the floor, it then failed to find that appellant was aware that his act was likely to result in harm. Appellant contends that the court improperly found appellant guilty for his knowing act alone, and applied only an objective standard of knowledge when finding that "[t]hat's what happens when glass gets thrown down on linoleum floors with concrete underneath. There is a likelihood that that is going to happen." We agree with appellant.
{¶ 14} It is clear from the court's decision that the court found that appellant acted knowingly in slamming the glass to the floor. Appellant has even conceded that such act was intentional. But while the court makes a finding that a glass will commonly break when thrown to a concrete floor, the court did not conclude that appellant was subjectively aware that his actions would probably result in harm to his nearby wife. We are limited to the court's findings of fact, unless such findings of fact are against the weight of the evidence. While we are mindful that a defendant's subjective knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances, which would include appellant's angry, intentional slamming of the glass within five or six feet of his wife, the trial court failed to make such a finding in its decision. The trial court's factual findings in this case therefore do not amount to a legal conclusion that appellant knowingly caused physical harm, and we must reverse his conviction for domestic violence. *5
{¶ 15} However, the court's findings are sufficient to consider a conviction for the lesser included offense of disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor in violation of R.C.
{¶ 16} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 17} "When a trial court finds an offender guilty of domestic violence, it necessarily finds him or her guilty of the lesser included offense of disorderly conduct." State v. Cobb,
{¶ 18} We note that there has been some disagreement among Ohio districts as to whether disorderly conduct constitutes a lesser included offense of domestic violence. An offense may be a lesser included offense of another if "(i) the offense carries a lesser penalty than the other; (ii) the greater offense cannot, as statutorily defined, ever be committed *6
without the lesser offense, as statutorily defined, also being committed; and (iii) some element of the greater offense is not required to prove the commission of the lesser offense." Burgess at 586, citingState v. Deem (1988),
{¶ 19} The Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed the issue under another section of the domestic violence statute in Shaker Heights v.Mosley, 113 Ohio St.3d,
{¶ 20} While the Supreme Court's holding in Mosley applies to a different section of the domestic violence statute, involving threats of violence, we find guidance in their favorable use of the language we employed in Burgess to find that disorderly conduct under R.C.
{¶ 21} Accordingly, while we reverse appellant's conviction for domestic violence, we remand this case to the trial court with instructions to consider a conviction on the lesser included offense of disorderly conduct under R.C.
{¶ 22} Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
YOUNG, P.J. and BRESSLER, J., concur.