STATE OF OHIO v. SHAMEKA HAWTHORNE
No. 96496
Cоurt of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
November 23, 2011
[Cite as State v. Hawthorne, 2011-Ohio-6078.]
BEFORE: Stewart, P.J., S. Gallagher, J., and Rocco, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-535266
Alek El-Kamhawy
14837 Detroit Avenue, No. 227
Cleveland, OH 44107
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Carrie Hendrichs
John Wojton
Assistant County Prosecutors
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street, 9th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Shameka Hawthorne, appeals from her conviction for felonious assault stemming from a fight involving multiple individuals. She complains that the evidence supporting her conviction was legally insufficient and against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons stated bеlow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Evidence presented at Hawthorne‘s bench trial set forth the following facts. Kendra Hart, the 15-year-old victim, testified that on March 11, 2010, she attempted to aid her sister who was embroiled in a fight in a рarking lot involving 20 to 30 females with a large crowd of onlookers. Some of the attackers were armed with sticks, knives, and glass, and numerous punches were thrown. Hart was pummeled by numerous
{¶ 3} Numerous officers from the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (“CMHA“) Police Department1 responded to the incident, along with officers from the Cleveland Police Department and paramedics from Cleveland Emergency Medical Services. Upon arrival, Officer Jeffrey Holdeman found the victim staggering around in an incoherent fashion, and observed blood on the back of her shirt. After sitting her on the sidewalk, he removed her shirt and discovered three lacerations to her upper back. Holdeman used gauze retrieved from his policе cruiser to apply direct pressure to the victim‘s wounds in an attempt to stop the bleeding.
{¶ 4} While administering first aid, Holdeman asked the victim to tell him what transpired. She described her attackers as two females, one wearing a bright orange T-shirt, and the other wearing a dark T-shirt and heavy set. She then identified her assailants by pointing directly at Hawthorne and Hogan, who were standing in the doorway of a nearby apаrtment building. When the officers approached Hawthorne and
{¶ 5} In her single assignment of error, Hawthorne argues that the trial court erred in finding her guilty without legally sufficient evidence, and that the finding was against the mаnifest weight of evidence presented at trial.
{¶ 6} When reviewing a claim that there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks (1981), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 7} A manifest weight standard of review is different in thаt it requires us to review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the triеr of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Otten (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 515 N.E.2d 1009, paragraph one of the syllabus. The discretiоnary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in exceptional cases where the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541.
{¶ 9} A verdict will not be disturbed based upon a claim of insufficient evidence unless it is apparent that reasonable minds could not come to the conclusion reached by the trier of fact. State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 484, 2001-Ohio-4, 739 N.E.2d 749. “Proof of guilt may be made by circumstantial evidence, real evidence, and direct evidence, or any combinаtion of the three, and all three have equal probative value.” State v. Zadar, 8th Dist. No. 94698, 2011-Ohio-1060, ¶ 18, citing State v. Nicely (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 147, 529 N.E.2d 1236. “Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying, and persuasive than direct evidence.” Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc. (1960), 364 U.S. 325, 330, 81 S.Ct. 6, 5 L.Ed.2d 20.
{¶ 10} Felonious assault, set forth in
{¶ 11} In the case at bar, the evidence is sufficient for rational minds to conclude that Hawthorne caused physical harm to the victim by means of a deadly weapon. The victim testified that she saw Hawthorne approach her with a black box cutter in her hand. A box cutter is certainly adaptable as a deadly weapon. The testimony, “[y]eah, I cut her, yeah“, demonstrates Hawthorne‘s mental state at the time of the assault. Physical
{¶ 12} We find this evidence sufficient to sustain Hawthorne‘s conviction.
{¶ 13} Hawthorne additionally complains that the manifest weight of the evidence does not support a finding of guilt because there was conflicting testimony with regard to who attacked Hart.
{¶ 14} When reviewing a claim that a conviction is against thе manifest weight of the evidence, we are mindful that the weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are matters primarily for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212, paragraph one of the syllabus. The triеr of fact has the authority to “believe or disbelieve any witness or accept part of what a witness says and reject the rest.” State v. Antill (1964), 176 Ohio St. 61, 67, 197 N.E.2d 548. “[A]n appellate court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the finder of fact.” State v. Awan (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 123, 489 N.E.2d 277.
{¶ 15} Hawthorne complains that the manifest weight of the evidence points to her innocence since reasonable doubt as to who stabbed the victim is not outweighed by the testimony presented. She points out that numerous armed individuals took part in the brawl, and that Hart did not actually see her inflict the wounds because she was incoherent from the blows she sustained prior to being stabbed. Hawthorne сontends
{¶ 16} In State v. Jordan, 8th Dist. Nos. 79469 and 79470, 2002-Ohio-590, a knife-assault victim‘s identification of her assailant was challenged by the defendant as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant claimed that he had merely happened upon the scene and was not the attacker. The court noted that “as a reviewing court, [it] must only consider whether the evidence and any reasonable inferences therefrom can support the jury‘s verdict.” Id. at 3. The court overruled the appellаnt‘s assignment of error since the fact finder had resolved the conflicting testimony and found the victim‘s version of events to be more credible.
{¶ 17} In State v. Carroll, 1st Dist. No. C-020777, 2003-Ohio-5260, a group of individuals attacked and repeatedly stabbed thеir victim with a knife. Evidence presented at trial consisted of the victim‘s positive identification of the defendant. The defendant presented an alibi that directly conflicted with the victim‘s testimony and also challenged the victim‘s recollection of the identity of his assailants. Despite the
{¶ 18} The victim in the case at bar testified that she saw Hawthorne, who was wearing an orange shirt and jogging pants, approach her with a black box cutter in her hand. Shortly thereafter, she heard someone from the crowd scream “Kendra, you got stabbed.” The victim and her mother testified that they overheard Hawthorne boasting that she had “stabbed the bitch.” When the police arrived, Hawthorne was still near the scene of the fight. The victim immediately identified Hawthorne as her attacker. Officer Brandon Greear testified that Hawthorne was wearing an orange shirt when he arrested her. At trial, the victim identified Hawthorne from a photo taken by the police on the day of the assault.
{¶ 19} While the testimony of Mangham is at odds with the state‘s evidence, the court obviously resolved the conflict in favor of the stаte. We cannot say that the evidence weighs heavily against conviction.
{¶ 20} Hawthorne‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were rеasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandаte pursuant to
MELODY J. STEWART, PRESIDING JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR