State v. FreemanState v. Freeman
Jon R. Sinclair, for appellant.
S. POWELL, P.J.
{1} Appellant, Shawnta L. Freeman, appeals her conviction in the Butler County Area III Court after she was found guilty of one count of first-degree misdemeanor assault following a bench trial.1 For the reasons outlined below, we affirm Freeman‘s conviction.
{3} After hearing the testimony offered by these three witnesses, as well as testimony offered by Freeman‘s brother, the trial court returned а verdict finding Freeman guilty as charged. In so doing, the trial court noted that it had found neither Freeman‘s testimony, nor the testimony offered by Freeman‘s brothеr, “credible at all.” Upon returning its verdict, the trial court then sentenced Freeman to 180 days in jail, with 50 of those days suspended, and ordered Freemаn to pay a $200 fine plus court costs.2 The trial court also placed Freeman on three years of community control, instructed Freeman not to have any contact with the victim, and required Freeman to complete an anger management course.
{4} Freeman now appeals her conviction, raising the following single assignment of error for review.
{5} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ENTERING A CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT WHEN THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONVICTION.
{7} “[A] manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to the state‘s burden of persuasion.” State v. Messenger, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26. “To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this court must lоok 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 trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justicе that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Lewis, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-07-128, 2020-Ohio-3762, ¶ 18, citing State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359, 2018-Ohio-1562, ¶ 168.
{8} However, while a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence requires this court to evaluate witness credibility, this determination is primarily for the trier of fact to decide. State v. Baker, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-08-146, 2020-Ohio-2882, ¶ 30, citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. This court will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of the evidence only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented аt trial weighs heavily against the conviction and in favor of acquittal. State v. Hundley, 162 Ohio St.3d 509, 2020-Ohio-3775, ¶ 80; State v. Morgan, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2013-08-146 and CA2013-08-147, 2014-Ohio-2472, ¶ 34.
{9} As noted above, Freeman was convicted of one count of first-degree misdemeanor assault in violation of
{10} A victim‘s testimony is all that is needed to “sustain a conviction for assault in viоlation of
{11} Freeman argues her conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the testimony eliсited by the state at trial identifying her as the perpetrator who assaulted the victim with a baseball bat was “unreliable.” To support this claim, Freeman argues that “the two crucial witnesses” who testified against her “provided very different testimony” regarding the alleged assault: the independent eyewitness testifying that Freeman hit the victim “in the torso with the bat—or lower on the body,” whereas the victim of the assault testified that Freeman hit her in the jaw. Wе fail to see the significance of this inconsistency when considering both witnesses testified that Freeman struck the victim with a baseball bat, thereby causing the victim to suffer physical harm. This is because, regardless of whether Freeman struck the victim in the torso or in the jaw, this
{12} In so holding, we note the now well-established principle that “[i]nconsistencies in the evidence аlone do not mean that a decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” State v. Gregory, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2022-10-070, 2023-Ohio-1700, ¶ 16. This is particularly true here when considering the inconsistencies in the testimony offered by the state‘s two crucial witnesses was minor, thus falling well short of what it would take to render either of those two witnesses’ testimony inherently unworthy of belief. See, e.g., State v. Berry, 159 Ohio App.3d 476, 2004-Ohio-6027, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.) (“the inconsistencies in the testimony of the state‘s witnesses were minor, and they did not render their testimоny inherently unworthy of belief“). That Freeman denied assaulting the victim does not mean the trial court was required to accept Freeman‘s testimоny as true. “A conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the trier of fact believed the testimony offered by thе prosecution.” State v. Baker, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-08-146, 2020-Ohio-2882, ¶ 31. Such is the case here given the trial court‘s express finding neither Freeman‘s testimony, nor the testimony offered by Freeman‘s brothеr, “credible at all.” Therefore, finding no merit to Freeman‘s argument raised herein, Freeman‘s single assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.
{13} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.