State of Ohio/City of Toledo v. Dominick Rainey
Court of Appeals No. L-18-1270
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Decided: November 8, 2019
[Cite as Toledo v. Rainey, 2019-Ohio-4618.]
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Dаvid Toska, Chief Prosecutor, and Jimmie Jones, Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.
Misty Wood, for appellant.
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Dominick Rainey, appeals from the December 20, 2018 judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court convicting him of assault, a violation of
THE PROSECUTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF.
{¶ 2} At trial, Carrie Mohler, a therapeutic prоgram worker for the Northwest Ohio Psychiatric Hospital, testified she was assisting a patient on October 20, 2018, when apрellant, who was also a patient at the hospital, told the other patient to come into a room to fight. That patient refused. Appellant had only been in the unit for two days and there had been no prior altercation with this patient, but appellant had assaulted other patients. Mohler told the patient to come towаrd her and she went around the nurse’s station to walk the patient to the TV area and away from appellant. While they were moving away, appellant lunged out from the doorway where he had been standing and started hitting the patient in the face and head and pulled the patient’s t-shirt over his head. The patient was bleeding and unable to fight back. When Mohler and a nurse tried to intervene, appellant punched the nurse in the arm and Mohler in the chest with a closed fist. Mohler further testified that as she attempted to grab appellant’s arm, which was slippery because he had covered himself in Vaseline, he turned around and looked her in the eye before striking her. Mohler was taken to the hospital and was told she had a contusion to the chest and rib. She had therapy, but the pain persisted for three weeks. Other personnel came to help get appellant back to his room and providе first aid for the patient and Mohler.
{¶ 4} Appellant argues in his sole assignment of error that insufficient evidence was admitted to support his conviction.
{¶ 5} Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal question of whether there was adequate evidence to present a case to the jury and whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). The appellate court does not weigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of
{¶ 6} Appellant argues the only witness was one of the alleged victims, Mohler. While evidence was presented to corroborate her injuries, he asserts no other evidenсe corroborated her testimony that appellant knowingly caused harm to her. Furthermore, he asserts the рolice officer’s testimony was inconsistent with the original police report.
{¶ 7} In this case, the victim testified she sаw assailant look at her prior to assaulting her and both she and the police officer on the scene testified regarding her injuries. Her testimony is sufficient evidence to support a conviction. There was no need for hеr testimony to be corroborated. Therefore, we find this evidence was sufficient to submit the case to the jury and support the conviction as a matter of law. Appellant’s sole assignment of error is found not well-taken.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, P.J. _______________________________
Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE
CONCUR. _______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interеsted in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.