STATE OF OHIO v. JEREMY J. MARSHALL
CASE NO. CA2016-11-031
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO MADISON COUNTY
12/28/2017
[Cite as State v. Marshall, 2017-Ohio-9269.]
M. POWELL, J.; HENDRICKSON, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT Case No. CRB1600311
Stephen J. Pronai, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten Gross, 59 North Main Street, London, Ohio 43140, for plaintiff-appellee
Shannon M. Treynor, 63 North Main Street, P.O. Box 735, London, Ohio 43140,
M. POWELL, J.
{1} Defendant-appellant, Jeremy Marshall, appeals from his domestic violence conviction in the Madison County Municipal Court. For the reasons discussed below, this court affirms Marshall‘s conviction.
{2} On April 29, 2016, the Madison County Sheriff‘s Office filed a complaint charging Marshall with one count of domestic violence, a violation of
{3} The matter proceeded to a bench trial in October 2016. The state introduced testimony from Kathleen Marshall (Marshall‘s mother), Beth Ann Marshall (Marshall‘s sister), and the responding deputy. The court found Marshall guilty. Marshall appeals, raising four assignments of error. For ease of analysis, we address certain assignments of error collectively and out of order.
{4} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{5} THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION, BY FAILING TO MEET ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFNESE BY PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
{6} Assignment of Error No. 4:
{7} THE DEFENDANT‘S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{8} In his third and fourth assignments of error Marshall challenges the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence supporting his conviction. Marshall argues that the state failed to submit sufficient evidence that he committed a threatening act towards Kathleen or that Kathleen believed that Marshall would cause her physical harm. Marshall otherwise argues that his conviction was not supported by the weight of the evidence because the court found that Kathleen was not afraid of Marshall.
{9} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, an appellate court examines the evidence to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average
{10} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge, on the other hand, examines the “inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.” State v Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14. To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing 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 trier 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. Id. An appellate court will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of the evidence only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily in favor of acquittal. Id. at ¶ 18. A “determination that a conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency.” State v. Jones, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-03-049, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 19.
{11} The court convicted Marshall of domestic violence in violation of
{12} Kathleen testified that she was at her daughter Beth Ann‘s home on April 29, 2016. Marshall was her son and he lived with Beth Ann. Kathleen and Marshall did not get along and when there were arguments, Kathleen always got the “brunt of it.” That day, Marshall and Beth Ann were quarrelling because Beth Ann asked him to move out of her home. Marshall was irate and was outside of the home using scissors to destroy loose gutters that were to be installed on the house.
{13} Kathleen, Beth Ann, and Beth Ann‘s child went into a bedroom in the home and locked the door. Kathleen explained that she wanted to separate herself from Marshall, even though the argument did not involve her. Marshall came back inside. He then threatened that he would commit suicide and that Beth Ann would come home to blood everywhere. Kathleen responded by yelling that Marshall would never babysit Beth Ann‘s son alone again.
{14} Marshall managed to unlock the bedroom door, possibly with the scissors
{15} After thoroughly reviewing the record, this court concludes that the trial court did not lose its way in finding Marshall guilty of domestic violence in violation of
{16} We reject Marshall‘s argument that the evidence did not support the conclusion that he committed a threatening act. Marshall‘s physical behavior was obviously intended to intimidate his mother.
{17} We also reject the contention that the state failed to prove that Kathleen believed that Marshall would cause her physical harm because she was not afraid.
{18} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{19} OHIO LAW DOES NOT RECOGNIZE NONVERBAL THREATS OF FORCE BY DEFINITION.
{20} In his first assignment of error, Marshall argues that his act of entering the locked room and then pushing Kathleen onto the bed with his forehead was insufficient to establish a threat of force. Marshall argues, without citation to authority, that a threat of force must be verbal and a nonverbal threat of force cannot sustain a conviction under
{21} The Revised Code does not define “threat” or “threat of force” as used in
an indication of something impending and [usually] undesirable or unpleasant * * * an expression of an intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage on another [usually] as retribution or punishment for something done or left undone * * * something that by its very nature or relation to another threatens the welfare of the latter.
Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 2382 (1993). (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the common meaning of a threat is not limited to verbal communications to harm another.
{22} As implied in Rhoads, this court agrees that nonverbal conduct can establish a threat of force if the defendant acted knowingly and the conduct caused the victim to anticipate imminent physical harm. There is no logical support for Marshall‘s claim that a threat of force must be accompanied by a verbal statement. This court overrules Marshall‘s first assignment of error.
{23} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{24} THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A “FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEMBER” AS THE RECEIPIENT OF THE “THREAT.”
{25} In his second assignment of error, Marshall presents an extension of his first assignment of error, i.e., that Ohio does not recognize nonverbal conduct for purposes of establishing a threat of force. Marshall argues that because the only verbal threat of force in evidence was from Marshall himself (his threat to commit suicide), he cannot be a victim because he cannot be related to himself. This argument has no merit. As discussed, the underlying premise of Marshall‘s first assignment of error, that a threat of force must be verbal, is erroneous. Furthermore, as detailed above, the threat of force involved in the offense was directed at Kathleen. It was undisputed that Kathleen is Marshall‘s mother. Therefore, Kathleen is a family member pursuant to the definition of “family or household member” as set forth in
{26} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.