State v. WilsonState v. Wilson
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Fain, Donovan, Hall
Rendered on the 14th day of October, 2016.
FAIN, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Calvin Wilson appeals from a judgment of conviction fоr
I. Victim Provides Multiple Versions of the Assault
{¶ 2} In September 2015, L.W. made a 911 call requesting police assistance and reporting that her child‘s fаther, Wilson, had physically assaulted her and threatened to shoot her. Shortly thereafter, an officer arrived on the scene, аnd L.W. identified herself as the victim. Her attacker was no longer at the scene. The officer observed the victim‘s bruises and scratchеs. L.W. described her attack to the officer on the scene consistently with the information she gave the 911 operator, identifying Wilson аs the attacker and the father of her child. The officer gave L.W. a blank form and asked her to complete a written statement. In her written statement, L.W. stated that Wilson hit her in the head twice, punched her twice, and that after she fell to the ground, Wilson kicked her.
{¶ 3} Prior tо trial, L.W. gave an affidavit “rescinding the charges” brought against Wilson, averring that she was unsure how the altercation began, and admitting that she hit Wilsоn and said things to the police that she should not have said. At trial, L.W. acknowledged that she called 911 and gave the statements regarding thе assault, but claimed that the officers told her what to write and whom to identify as her attacker. L.W. also testified for the defense, testifying thаt Wilson was not the father of her child, that
II. The Course of Proceedings
{¶ 4} Two criminal complaints were filed against Wilson, charging him with the offense of Domestic Violence, in violation of
{¶ 5} At a bench trial, Wilson was convicted of Assault and acquitted of Domestic Violence. Wilson was sentencеd to serve 90 days in jail, with all 90 days of the sentence suspended. Wilson was placed on basic supervised probation for a pеriod of one year, and ordered to pay a fine of $100, plus court costs. Wilson was also ordered to participate in a “Stop the Violence” program.
III. The Standard of Review
{¶ 6} “A sufficiency of the evidence argument disputes whether the State has presented adequаte evidence on each element of the offense to allow the case to go to the jury or sustain the verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 10, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). When reviewing whether the State has presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction, “the relevant inquiry is whеther any rational finder of fact, after
IV. There Is Sufficient Evidence to Support a Conviction fоr Assault
{¶ 7} For his sole assignment of error, Wilson alleges:
APPELLANT‘S [sic] ASSERT THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT EVIDENCE OF AN ASSAULT, CONSISTENT WITH R.C 2013.A. [sic]
{¶ 8} Wilson was convicted of the offense of Assault, in violation of
{¶ 9} The trial court was presented with evidence from both the victim, L.W., and the officer who arrived on the scene after L.W. mаde the 911 call. The officer stated that he asked L.W. to write out a statement, and she did complete it in his presence. The offiсer stated that he did not prompt her to name Wilson or tell her what to write on the form. The trial court heard and considered a rеcording of the 911 call. The written statement is consistent with the verbal statements L.W. made to the 911 operator. Both
{¶ 10} In support of his sole assignment of error, Wilson argues that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, beсause the complaining witness was not credible. To reverse a judgment as being against the manifest weight of the evidence, an aрpellate court must determine that “the jury clearly lost its way and created * * * a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). While we acknowledge that the victim, L.W., changed her story and described at least three versions of the assault, the trial court, as the trier of fact could choose to believe or disbelieve any part of her testimony. “It is well established that the trier of fact may credit some, part, or none of the testimony of a witness.” State v. Pheanis, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26560, 2015-Ohio-5015, ¶ 29, citing State v. Butt, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22774, 2009-Ohio-6814, ¶ 19; State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61, 67, 197 N.E.2d 548 (1964).
{¶ 11} “The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony are matters for the trier of facts to resolve.” State v. Hammad, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26057, 2014-Ohio-3638, ¶ 13, citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). “The trier of fact is better situated than an appellate court to view witnesses and to observe their dеmeanor, gestures, voice inflections and to use those observations in weighing credibility.” State v. Jackson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26050, 2015-Ohio-5490, ¶ 50, citing State v. Lewis, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 01CA2787, 2002 WL 368625 (Feb. 25, 2002). “[T]he appellate сourt may not substitute its judgment for that of the trier-of-
{¶ 12} We conclude that the conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, Wilson‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
V. Conclusion
{¶ 13} Wilson‘s sole assignment of error having been overruled, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
DONOVAN, P.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Barbara J. Doseck
Stephanie L. Cook
Troy B. Daniels
Jimmie Christon
Hon. Mia Wortham Spells