State v. QueenState v. Queen
HENSAL, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} William Queen appeals his convictions from the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mr. Queen connected with T.Q. through a dating application and they eventually met in person one evening at Springfield Lake. When they arrived, Mr. Queen hugged and kissed T.Q., which she thought was flattering. As it began to get late, T.Q. got ready to leave, saying that she wanted to get home tо watch a football game and have dinner. Mr. Queen suggested that he join T.Q. at her home for dinner and the game, and T.Q. agreed.
{¶3} At. T.Q.‘s home, she gave him a tour and then they sat on the couch to continue talking and getting to know each other. According to T.Q., at one point the conversation took an uncomfortable turn so she decided to get up to check on dinner. Mr. Queen followed her and began kissing her from behind, which she enjoyed. Suddenly, he turned T.Q. around and grabbed
{¶4} The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Queen on one count of felonious assault and two сounts of rape. The rape counts each contained a sexually violent offender specification. A jury found Mr. Queen guilty of all the offenses. The trial court found that Mr. Queen was a sexually violent offender and sentenced him to a total of 30 years to life imprisonment. Mr. Queen has appealed, assigning two errors.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT OVERRULED A TIMELY DEFENSE MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL RULE 29 AS THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE STATE OF OHIO TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF FELONIOUS ASSAULT TO WARRANT THE CASE BEING SUBMITED TO THE JURY.
{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Queen argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal on the felonious assault charge. Under Criminal Rule 29(A), a defendant is entitled to а judgment of acquittal on a charge against him “if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction * * *.”
{¶6}
{¶7} T.Q. testified that Mr. Queen was kissing her neck from behind in the kitchen but then turned her around and grabbed her throat. He pushed her up against a wall with his hands on her throat, causing her to be unable to breathe. He kept his hands around her throat, strangling her, as he pushed her down the hallway to her bedroom. Once in the bedroom, he removed one of the hands from her throat so that he could hold her arms above her head. According to T.Q., around that time, her mind went blank and she was no longer sure exactly what was going on. She could not breathe, started to panic, and felt her body go numb from head to toe.
{¶8} A sexual assault nurse examiner testified that T.Q. had bruising on both sides of her neck that was consistent with strangulation. She explained that strangulation causes a lack of blood flow to the brain and makes it difficult for blood to return from the brain. If blood cannot
{¶9} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, there was evidence that Mr. Queen caused temporary, substantial incapacity to T.Q. when he strangled her, preventing her from breathing and causing her mind to go blank and her entire body numb. See State v. Driesbaugh, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2002-P-0017, 2003-Ohio-3866, ¶ 47 (concluding that victim whose arms and legs would sporadically go numb and make him unsteady following collision had suffered some temporary substantial incapacity). We, thеrefore, conclude that the trial court did not err when it denied Mr. Queen‘s motion for judgment of acquittal. Mr. Queen‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE VERDICT OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶10} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Queen argues that his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidencе. When considering a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, this Court is required to consider 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 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.” State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). Weight of the evidence pertains to the greater amount оf credible evidence produced in a trial to support one side over the other side. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387. An appellate court should only exercise its power to reverse a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence in exceptionаl cases. State v. Carson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26900, 2013-Ohio-5785, ¶ 32, citing Otten at 340.
{¶11} Mr. Queen argues that his rape convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State failed to prove force or threat of force. He notes that, when T.Q. spoke to law enforcement, she told a detective that she thought it was “kinky” when Mr. Queen pushed her up against the wall. She also said that, when Mr. Queen held her hands up in the air with one hand and had the other around her neck, she thought that he must like rough sex. She also stated several times during the interview that the sexual activity was consensual. According to Mr. Queen, T.Q.‘s prior statements to law enforcement demonstrate that her testimony at trial that none of the sexual activity was consensual was not credible.
{¶12} The detective testified that T.Q. told him that she would have been fine with having sex with Mr. Queen and that she was fine with what he did “[u]p to a certain point[.]” The detective testified that T.Q. told him the “rough sex was not consensual[,]” which was consistent with her trial testimony. T.Q. testified that she told Mr. Queen “stop” and “don‘t,” but Mr. Queen did not stop. It is not inconsistent for T.Q. to think that something Mr. Queen did was “kinky” or that he enjoyed rough sex while at the same time not consenting to such conduct. The jury was in the best position to assess the credibility of the testifying witnesses and decide whether T.Q. was telling the truth when she stated that she did not consent to sexual intercourse with Mr. Queen. State v. Piatt, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 19CA0023, 2020-Ohio-1177, ¶ 36. Upon review of the record, we conclude that Mr. Queen has not established that this is the exceptional case where the evidence weighs heavily against his rape convictions. See id. at ¶ 37.
{¶13} Mr. Queen next argues that his felonious assault conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence because there was no evidence of serious physical harm. He notes that T.Q. did not seek any medical treatment following the alleged strangulation and оnly went for an examination because of the alleged sexual assault, not because of any injury to her throat. He argues that there was no evidence of any extreme pain, long lasting injury, or serious risk of death. He also notes that T.Q. never told him tо stop during the alleged strangulation, did not lose consciousness, and did not have any physical injury besides a couple of small bruises.
{¶14} Under
{¶15} Upon review of the record, we conclude that the jury did not lose its way when it determined that Mr. Queen caused serious physical harm to T.Q. Accordingly, his conviction for felonious assault is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶16} Mr. Queen also argues that the trial court‘s findings that he is a sexually violent predator are against the manifest weight of thе evidence. Under
{¶17} Mr. Queen argues that the only еvidence presented by the State regarding whether he is a sexually violent predator was the journal entry of a prior conviction he had. He also argues there was no evidence or findings of any of the factors under
{¶18} Regarding the factors a court may consider under
{¶19} In finding that Mr. Queen is a sexually violent predator, the trial court explained that, although a prior conviction is not required, Mr. Queen had a prior conviction on two separate counts. It also noted that there was a prior finding by a court that Mr. Queen is a sеxually violent predator.
{¶20} The State argues that, in addition to the trial court‘s oral findings, it may have taken note that Mr. Queen was on post-release control at the time he committed his offenses in the Medina case. It may also have discerned thаt Mr. Queen had been released from prison for less than five years when he attacked T.Q.
{¶21} Upon review of the record, we conclude that Mr. Queen‘s prior convictions for rape against different individuals and the details of his attack of T.Q. suppоrt the trial court‘s determination that he is a sexually violent predator. The court‘s sexually-violent-predator findings are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mr. Queen‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶22} Mr. Queen‘s assignments of error are оverruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT