STATE OF OHIO, Appellee, - vs - KEVIN CASEY, Appellant.
CASE NO. CA2023-07-075
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
2/26/2024
[Cite as State v. Casey, 2024-Ohio-689.]
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT Case No. CRB2300958
Christopher P. Frederick, for appellant.
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Kevin Casey, appeals from his conviction in the Hamilton Municipal Court after a jury found him guilty of one count of fourth-degree misdemeanor domestic violence in violation of
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 3} On June 26, 2023, a one-day jury trial was held on the matter. During trial, the jury heard testimony from both the victim, Casey‘s sister, and Casey. This included the victim testifying:
My brother walked into a room, a small room where there was no—he was blocking—blocking the entrance and the only exit out of the room.
He walked in * * * with a gun in his hand, pointed it at me and said, and I‘m going to quote him, I am tired of the Casey bullshit. I‘m going to tell you one time and one time only. He raised the gun with his right hand. He brought his left hand up, I thought to brace the gun.
And this is where I felt I was going to lose my life, because [Casey‘s] mental instabilities, he should not have a gun.
{¶ 4} Continuing, the victim then testified:
So he [brought] his hand up. The gun was pointed directly at me. And I saw his other hand come up and I blocked my face and brought my legs up to my core, because I thought he was—I brought my legs up to the core, because if the firearm
would have went off, it wouldn‘t have directly hit me. And I heard a bullet hit the ground and I realized the gun did not discharge. So I immediately got out of the room [and ran down the hallway and outside the house and got into my car].
{¶ 5} Thereafter, when asked what the firearm that Casey pointed at her looked like, the victim testified:
I can tell you exactly what the barrel looked like, but I did not see the actual gun itself, because it was so quick. He brought it up from his hip and then there was a hand and I was blocked.
{¶ 6} This is in addition to the victim testifying as to what she was thinking immediately after her brother, Casey, pointed the firearm at her:
He is going to shoot me because, you know, in my mind, you don‘t raise a firearm unless you intend to use it. * * * And I thought he was going to use it. And when I heard the slide of the gun go back and the bullet hit the ground, and I didn‘t—I didn‘t hear that large bang, I had to get out of that room because I was—I just had to get out of that room because I was so scared.
The victim additionally testified that Casey “has in the past, yes, said, yes, I will kill you.”
{¶ 7} Following deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding Casey guilty of the charged domestic violence offense. Upon accepting the jury‘s guilty verdict, the trial court then immediately proceeded to sentencing and sentenced Casey to a two-year term of community control. The trial court also ordered Casey to serve 30 days in jail, less three days of jail-time credit, with 17 of those days stayed, with conditions. The next day, June 27, 2023, Casey filed a notice of appeal.
Casey‘s Appeal and Single Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} Casey‘s appeal now properly before this court for decision, Casey has raised a single assignment of error for this court‘s review. In his single assignment of error, Casey argues that, in light of the evidence presented at trial, the jury‘s verdict finding
Sufficiency and Manifest Weight Standards of Review
{¶ 9} “A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence invokes a due process concern and raises the question whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, ¶ 165, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). Such a challenge “requires a determination as to whether the state has met its burden of production at trial.” State v. Boles, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2012-06-012, 2013-Ohio-5202, ¶ 34. “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. Roper, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2021-05-019, 2022-Ohio-244, ¶ 39, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. “‘Proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ is proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most important of the person‘s own affairs.”
{¶ 10} Unlike the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review, “a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to the state‘s burden of persuasion.” State v. Messenger, 171 Ohio St.3d 227, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26. “To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the
Domestic Violence in Violation of R.C. 2919.25(C)
{¶ 11} Casey was convicted of one count of fourth-degree misdemeanor domestic violence in violation of
Casey‘s Argument and Analysis
{¶ 12} Casey argues the jury in this case “incorrectly weighed the evidence” and “did not properly execute its fact-finding responsibilities” when considering the testimony and evidence presented at trial. More specifically, Casey argues the evidence does not support the jury‘s verdict finding he had “knowingly caused [his sister] to believe he was going to harm her physically.”
{¶ 13} Casey‘s argument, however, completely ignores the victim‘s testimony presented in this case. This includes, as noted above, the victim‘s testimony that Casey came into the room where she was sitting while holding a firearm in his right hand and stated, “I am tired of the Casey bullshit. I‘m going to tell you one time and one time only.” The victim testified that Casey then pointed the firearm directly at her, thus causing the victim to block her face with her hand, bring her legs up to her core for protection, and think that she was “going to lose [her] life,” given her belief that Casey should not be in possession of a firearm given his “mental instabilities.”
{¶ 14} This is in addition to the victim‘s testimony regarding her thoughts immediately after Casey pointed the firearm at her. As previously stated, this includes the victim testifying:
He is going to shoot me because, you know, in my mind, you don‘t raise a firearm unless you intend to use it. * * * And I
thought he was going to use it. And when I heard the slide of the gun go back and the bullet hit the ground, and I didn‘t—I didn‘t hear that large bang, I had to get out of that room because I was—I just had to get out of that room because I was so scared.
{¶ 15} We find this evidence more than sufficient to support the jury‘s verdict finding Casey guilty of domestic violence. We also find this evidence, if believed, establishes that Casey‘s domestic violence conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. This is particularly true in this case when considering the victim also testified that Casey “has in the past, yes, said, yes, I will kill you.”
{¶ 16} In so holding, we note the well-established principle that a conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the jury believed the testimony offered by the state. State v. Ell, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2023-03-006, 2023-Ohio-4583, ¶ 13. We also note the equally well-established principle that a jury is free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony offered by each of the witnesses who appeared before it. State v. Spencer, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2018-08-082, 2019-Ohio-2165, ¶ 27. This includes the testimony both from the victim in this case, Casey‘s sister, as well as from Casey himself.
{¶ 17} This is in addition to the well-settled principle that the victim‘s testimony, standing alone, is sufficient to support a domestic violence conviction. See, e.g., State v. Mansour, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. CA2011-T-0013, 2011-Ohio-5438, ¶ 23 (“[a]lthough the only evidence presented by the State was [the victim‘s] testimony, such evidence alone can support a conviction of Domestic Violence“). Therefore, because Casey‘s domestic violence conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, Casey‘s single assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.
{¶ 18} For the reasons outlined above, and having now overruled Casey‘s single assignment of error, Casey‘s appeal challenging his conviction for one count of fourth-degree misdemeanor domestic violence in violation of
{¶ 19} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.