State v. BollingState v. Bolling
Iverson M. Jackson
420 Lakeside Place
323 West Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Oscar E. Albores
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶ 1} Appellant, Roychmere Bolling, appeals his conviction for domestic violence. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm appellant‘s conviction.
{¶ 2} On May 19, 2010, appellant was indicted on charges of kidnapping in violation of
{¶ 4} Appellant and the alleged victim, Tiffany Crosby, had dated and lived together in Cleveland, Ohio. On November 5, 2009, appellant met Crosby at the Early Childhood Development Center, where Crosby was picking up her son from school. At that time, appellant confronted Crosby about an encounter she had with a previous boyfriend at a local bar. When Crosby attempted to disengage from appellant, he grabbed her scarf to prevent her from walking away. Appellant continued to hold Crosby by her scarf throughout the parties’ argument. A teenage girl from the neighborhood witnessed the argument. Crosby saw the girl and asked her to take Crosby‘s son home from the school. Appellant then yelled at the girl, “If you go get her mother I‘m going to kill her.”
{¶ 5} On November 11, 2009, Crosby gave a voluntary statement regarding the November 5, 2009 incident to Detective Castillo of the domestic violence unit of the Cleveland police department. Based on this statement,
Law and Analysis
{¶ 6} Appellant appeals, citing two assignments of error:
{¶ 7} “I. “The trial court erred in denying appellant‘s motion for acquittal on the domestic violence charge when the state failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.”
{¶ 8} “II. “Appellant‘s conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
{¶ 9} For the purposes of clarity and judicial economy, appellant‘s first and second assignment of errors will be discussed together.
{¶ 10} Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for domestic violence and that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. He specifically contends that the state failed to present any evidence that he knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to Crosby.
{¶ 11} “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, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, paragraph two of the syllabus. Sufficiency is a test of adequacy. Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law. Id. at 386. Weight
{¶ 12} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, an appellate court examines 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. 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. State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 13} A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence attacks the verdict in light of the state‘s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Thompkins at 386-387. When inquiring into the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court sits as the “thirteenth juror and makes an independent review of the record.” Id. at 387; Tibbs v. Florida (1982), 457 U.S. 31, 42, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652. The appellate court reviews the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of all witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest
{¶ 14} Where a judgment is supported by competent, credible evidence going to all essential elements to be proven, the judgment will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Mattison (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 10, 14, 490 N.E.2d 926. Accordingly, reversal on manifest weight grounds is reserved for “the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Martin at 175.
{¶ 15} To sustain appellant‘s conviction for domestic violence in violation of
{¶ 16} The definition of “knowingly” found in
{¶ 17} “‘Physical harm to persons’ means any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.”
{¶ 18} Generally, “[o]ne does not have to cause serious injury to be guilty of domestic violence.” State v. Blonski (1997), 125 Ohio App.3d 103, 114, 707 N.E.2d 1168. Indeed, “[a] defendant may be found guilty of domestic violence even if the victim sustains only minor injuries, or sustains no injury at all.” Id., citing State v. Nielsen (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 609, 612, 585 N.E.2d 906.
{¶ 19} While we recognize that Crosby testified that she was not injured by the appellant and was “fine” when the police arrived at the scene, a violation of
{¶ 20} In the case at bar, the evidence demonstrates that in the midst of a heated argument, appellant intentionally and consciously grabbed Crosby by her scarf and prevented her from walking away. In fact, Crosby testified that appellant grabbed her in such a manner that she had to place her hands between her neck and the scarf in order to prevent herself from choking.
{¶ 21} Taking this information into consideration, we find that the totality of the circumstances indicate that appellant, in the least, knowingly attempted to cause physical harm to Crosby. Accordingly, appellant‘s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
{¶ 22} Additionally, we are unable to conclude that this is the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. The state presented competent, credible evidence to support each element of the offense of which appellant was convicted. As stated, Crosby testified under oath that appellant abruptly grabbed her by her scarf to prevent her from walking away from him. She testified that the scarf was wrapped tightly around her neck due to the cold weather and that she kept her hand between her neck and scarf to prevent appellant from choking her. Further, a passerby heard appellant threaten to kill Crosby if her mother was summoned.
{¶ 23} In weighing the credibility of witnesses and the totality of evidence presented, appellant‘s conviction for domestic violence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 24} Appellant‘s first and second assignments of error are without merit and are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., and
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR