STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DONALD E. CARTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 11-10-08
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PAULDING COUNTY
February 7, 2011
2011-Ohio-522
Aрpeal from Paulding County Court Trial Court No. CRB1000062A Judgment Affirmed
Scott R. Gordon for Appellant
Matthew A. Miller for Appellee
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Donald Carter, appeals from the judgment of the County Court of Paulding County convicting him of one count of disorderly conduct with persistence in violation of
{¶2} In March 2010, Carter was charged by complaint with one count of obstructing official business in violation of
{¶3} In June 2010, the State filed an amended complaint, adding to Count II that Carter “did persist in such disorderly сonduct after a reasonable warning or request to desist” in violation of
{¶4} Subsequently, the case proceeded to jury trial. Before the presentation of evidence, Carter raised an oral motion to exclude the evidence of the hand gun found on his person and the rifle found in his residence at the time of his arrest, arguing that they were not relevant to the charges against him under
{¶5}
{¶6} Johanns continued that, as the deputy was handcuffing Carter, the deputy discovered a firearm on Carter; that, after Carter was arrested, they were able to disconnect Carter‘s electric service; that they did not havе the ability to shut off the power to Carter‘s house from their office; that the first time a crew was sent to Carter‘s property, they also did not feel they could safely disconnect the power to Carter‘s residence, so they left; and, that he was alarmed and inconvenienced by Carter‘s actions before the arrest.
{¶7} Dennis Clark testified that he was employed as a line supervisor for PPE; that, in March or April 2010, he and another employee went to Carter‘s
{¶8} Deputy Robert Garcia of the Paulding County Sheriff‘s Office testified that, on March 26, 2010, he was called to Carter‘s residence to “keep the peace at the request of [PPE]” (trial tr., vol. 2, p. 144); that he arrived at Carter‘s residence and Carter explained to him that he asked PPE to come to his property
{¶9} Deputy Mark Butler from the Paulding County Sheriff‘s Office testified that he received a call from PPE to keep the peace at Carter‘s residence so
{¶10} Sheriff David Harrow of the Paulding County Sheriff‘s Department testified that he was called to Carter‘s residence to keep the peace while PPE shut off the power to Carter‘s residence; that, as he spoke with Carter, Carter became more agitated, raising his voice, coming towards the deputies, shifting his weight from foot to foot, and ordering people off the property; that he informed Carter on
{¶11} Thereafter, the State rested and moved for the admission of exhibits, including the handgun seized from Carter, and Carter again objected to the admission of the handgun, which the trial court overruled.
{¶12} Subsequently, Carter moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to
{¶13} Following Carter‘s testimony, the jury acquitted Carter on obstructing official business under
{¶14}
{¶15} It is from his conviction and sentence that Carter appeals, presenting the following assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY ALLOWING TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY REGARDING THE HANDGUN.
Assignment of Error No. II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY OVERRULING HIS CRIM.R. 29 MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL.
Assignment of Error No. I
{¶16} In his first assignment of error, Carter argues that the trial court erred by permitting testimony regarding the handgun found on his person and by allowing the introduction of the handgun into evidence. Specifically, Carter contends that the handgun was not relevant to either the charge of obstructing official business or the charge of disorderly conduct pursuant to
{¶17} We initially note that Carter objected to the presentation of testimony regarding the handgun and the admission of the handgun into evidence, both
{¶18} An appellate court reviews the trial court‘s decision on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Heft, 3d Dist. No. 8-09-08, 2009-Ohio-5908, ¶62, citing State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 64, 2001-Ohio-1290. Accordingly, an appellate court will not disturb a trial court‘s evidentiary decision unless the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably. State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 23, 2002-Ohio-68. When applying an abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. State v. Nagle (2000), 11th Dist. No. 99-L-089, 2000 WL 777835.
{¶19}
{¶20}
No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official‘s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official‘s lawful duties.
Additionally, Carter was charged with disorderly conduct under
(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:
* * *
(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of рersons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;
* * *
(E)(3) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree if any of the following applies:
(a) The offender persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist.
{¶21} In ruling upon Carter‘s motion to exclude the evidence of the handgun, the trial court found that the presence of the handgun was relevant under
{¶22} While we may disagree with the trial court‘s ruling on the matter, as it appears the possession of the handgun may not have been relevant to the charges based upon the facts of the case, we note that, even if the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence, there was no prejudice to Carter. The State argued for the admission of the handgun, and the trial court admitted it on the basis that the handgun was relevant to show Carter‘s mental state in committing the offense of obstructing official business. However, Carter was acquitted on that charge by the jury. Moreover, because the jury acquitted Carter on that charge, it appears unlikely the evidence of the handgun would have prejudicially affected the jury‘s decision on the remaining charge of disorderly conduct. Therefore, any error in admission of the evidence of the handgun was harmless in this case.
{¶23} Aсcordingly, we overrule Carter‘s first assignment of error.
Assignment of Error No. II
{¶24} In his second assignment of error, Carter argues that the trial court erred in denying his
{¶25} When an appellate court reviews a record for sufficiency, 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. Monroe, 105 Ohio St.3d 384, 2005-Ohio-2282, ¶47, citing State v. Jenks (1981), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 1997-Ohio-355. Sufficiency is a test of adequacy, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 1997-Ohio-52, and the question of whether evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict is one of law. State v. Robinson (1955), 162 Ohio St. 486, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in Smith, supra.
{¶26} Carter was convicted of disorderly conduct under
{¶27} Additionally, Deputy Garcia testified that Carter informed him he would not allow PPE on his property unless they removed the utility poles from his property; that he informed Carter that PPE had a right to enter his property to disconnect the power; and, that Carter was arrested after he failed to heed multiple warnings to cease and desist in his disruptive actions.
{¶28} Consequently, we find that sufficient evidenсe was presented to establish that Carter engaged in disorderly conduct in violation of
{¶29} Accordingly, we overrule Carter‘s second assignment of error.
{¶30} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
/jnc