STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MATTHEW STIVER, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NOS. C-210228, C-210229
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
October 20, 2021
[Cite as State v. Stiver, 2021-Ohio-3713.]
TRIAL NOS. C-21CRB-3357 A-B; Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Municipal Court; Judgments Appealed From Are: Affirmed
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and David Hoffmann, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
{1} A spat between defendant-appellant Matthew Stiver and his then-girlfriend, Amber Ramsey, escalated to the precipice of violence, and resulted in Mr. Stiver‘s convictions for domestic violence and unauthorized use of a vehicle. Mr. Stiver now appeals, challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence supporting these convictions. We, however, see nothing in the record that would raise serious doubt as to the weight or sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and, accordingly, affirm the trial court‘s judgment.
I.
{2} This case stems from an altercation at a local fast food restaurant between two significant others who worked there together—Mr. Stiver and Ms. Ramsey. On the date in question, for unknown reasons, Mr. Stiver and Ms. Ramsey feuded throughout the duration of their shifts, with the acrimony slowly simmering. Mr. Stiver persistently demanded that Ms. Ramsey relinquish her cell phone, but she kept it from him by passing it between other employees and hiding it in various nooks and crannies around the restaurant. Without access to the phone, Mr. Stiver‘s suspicions deepened, and his mood darkened as he grew more and more agitated.
{3} Eventually, Mr. Stiver‘s frustrations boiled over, and he lunged at Ms. Ramsey. Fortunately, another employee intercepted him, restraining Mr. Stiver before he could assault her. Ms. Ramsey testified that, during this fracas, Mr. Stiver uttered something along the lines of “if I was not being held back, you would be sorry.” He attempted to overpower the employee and advance towards Ms. Ramsey, but when those efforts failed, he stormed out of the building.
{4} Earlier during her shift, concerned based on Mr. Stiver‘s volatility, Ms. Ramsey contacted her father and alerted him to the situation. This prompted her father to
{5} At a bench trial, Mr. Stiver was convicted of domestic violence and unauthorized use of a vehicle on these facts. On appeal, he challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
II.
{6} Mr. Stiver‘s sole assignment of error challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for domestic violence and unauthorized use of a vehicle.
{7} In reviewing whether the conviction runs counter to the manifest weight of the evidence, we sit as a “thirteenth juror.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). We will reverse the trial court‘s decision to convict and grant a new trial only in “‘exceptional cases in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.‘” State v. Sipple, 2021-Ohio-1319, 170 N.E.3d 1273, ¶ 7 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983).
{8} On the other hand, “[t]o determine whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence, ‘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. Walker, 150 Ohio St.3d 409, 2016-Ohio-8295, 82 N.E.3d 1124, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{9} The trial court convicted Mr. Stiver under
{10} For Mr. Stiver‘s manifest weight challenge, he features minor inconsistencies between the witnesses’ testimony on the time the altercation occurred, the distance between the couple during the altercation, and the position of other employees at the time. We do not believe that any of these inconsistencies rise to a level requiring reversal. Although the position of other employees in the restaurant and distance between the couple might have some bearing on the trial court‘s finding that the “imminent physical harm” requirement was met, these inconsistencies merely raise peripheral credibility determinations that the trial court could resolve based on the totality of the evidence. See State v. Ham, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-170043, 2017-Ohio-9189, ¶ 21 (“[I]t is well settled law that matters as to the credibility of witnesses are for the trier of fact to resolve.“). Mr. Stiver fails to demonstrate that any inconsistencies between the witnesses’ testimony weigh heavily against a conviction and we, therefore, overrule the manifest weight challenge to his domestic violence conviction.
{11} Mr. Stiver also attacks the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the imminent physical harm requirement because his threat was conditional—“if I were not being held back, you would be sorry.” In light of the conditional nature of the threat, his reasoning goes, Ms. Ramsey could not have believed that she would imminently suffer physical harm.
{12} As a threshold matter, Ms. Ramsey did not testify that Mr. Stiver used the conditional words “would be sorry” verbatim. Instead, Ms. Ramsey testified on cross-examination that Mr. Stiver “pretty much” said the “same thing.” But on direct
{13} It is true that a conditional threat alone may not suffice to meet the imminent physical harm requirement. See State v. Collie, 108 Ohio App.3d 580, 582-583, 671 N.E.2d 338 (1st Dist.1996) (“Unlike the menacing laws, this provision of the domestic violence statute contains the element of ‘imminence.’ ‘Imminent’ means ‘threatening to occur immediately.’ “), quoting Webster‘s Second International Dictionary 1245 (1959). But a conditional threat that coincides with an overt physical act may satisfy the imminent physical harm requirement. City of Cincinnati v. Baarlaer, 115 Ohio App.3d 521, 527, 685 N.E.2d 836 (1st Dist.1996). In Baarlaer, the defendant shoved the victim against a door and said “if [the victim] opened [her] mouth that [the defendant would] kill [her].” Id. at 525. We held that “the combination of the threat and the violence caused [the victim] to believe that [defendant] would do what he threatened to do, viz., that [defendant] would cause her imminent physical harm.” Id. at 527. We distinguished Baarlaer from Collie, a case where the defendant remarked “if I had a gun, I would shoot you.” Id., citing Collie at 582. Since the defendant did not perform an overt act or have access to a firearm, the Collie court held that the state failed to establish that the victim believed she would suffer imminent physical harm. Collie at 582-583. Unlike in Collie, the Baarlaer court recognized that pushing the victim against a door combined with defendant‘s threat to kill supported the belief that defendant “could do at that moment what he said he intended to do.” Baarlaer at 527.
{14} This case strikes us as much closer to Baarlaer than Collie. Given that Mr. Stiver‘s threat roughly coincided with his lunge towards Ms. Ramsey and attempts to move
B.
{15} Mr. Stiver also claims that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence of his prior conviction for domestic violence in elevating the seriousness of the offense under
{16} The state does not suggest that the judgment entry complies with
C.
{17} Finally, the trial court convicted Mr. Stiver of unauthorized use of a vehicle under
*
*
*
{19} For all of the foregoing reasons, we overrule Mr. Stiver‘s sole assignment of error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Judgments affirmed.
CROUSE and WINKLER, J.J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion