State v. Puckrin , 2020 Ohio 3562 ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Puckrin, 2020-Ohio-3562.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CASE NO. 2019-A-0073
- vs - :
JEFFERY RANDALL PUCKRIN :
a.k.a. JEFFERY R. PUCKRIN,
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2018 CR
00505.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Cecilia M. Cooper, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt, Assistant
Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, Ohio 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Matthew C. Bangerter, The Bangerter Law Office, 4124 Erie Street, Willoughby, Ohio
44094 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Jeffery Randall Puckrin, aka Jeffrey R. Puckrin (“Mr. Puckrin”),
appeals from the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, which
sentenced him to a 60-day jail sentence and two years of intensive community control
sanctions after a jury found him guilty on one count of obstructing official business with a
risk of physical harm to another person. We stayed Mr. Puckrin’s sentence pending this
appeal.
{¶2} Mr. Puckrin now raises two assignments of error, arguing there is
insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the jury’s guilty verdict is not
supported by the manifest weight of the evidence since there was no evidence that he
hampered or impeded the police investigation of a 911 domestic dispute call from his wife,
Angelina Puckrin (“Mrs. Puckrin”).
{¶3} A review of the record reveals Mr. Puckrin’s assignments of error are
without merit. There is more than sufficient evidence from which a jury could find Mr.
Puckrin obstructed official business, in that he repeatedly refused, both verbally and
physically, to comply with the deputies’ orders who were attempting to arrest him.
Moreover, the manifest weight of the evidence more than supports the jury’s verdict.
Simply because there was a competing version of events between the state and Mr.
Puckrin does not mean the jury so lost its way or that the verdict is unsupported.
{¶4} The judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶5} In late summer of 2018, after a criminal bindover from the Ashtabula County
Court, Western Division, the Ashtabula County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Puckrin with
aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(B)(1)(2); assault, a
fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A) &(C)(5); and obstructing official
business, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A) & (B). Charges of domestic
violence, abduction, and resisting arrest were not pursued or presented to the grand jury.
{¶6} Mr. Puckrin pleaded not guilty at his arraignment and the case proceeded
to be tried before a jury. Mr. Puckrin’s charges and subsequent conviction stemmed from
a domestic dispute in the summer of 2018, which involved Mr. Puckrin, Mrs. Puckrin, and
2
Mr. Puckrin’s stepsons and Mrs. Puckrin’s sons, William Alexander Wunsch (“Mr.
Wunsch”), and Joshua Kline (“Mr. Kline”).
The Jury Trial
{¶7} At trial, the state presented the testimony of several deputies from the
Ashtabula County Sheriff’s Office: Timothy Michael Wall (“Deputy Wall”), Brian Sterrick
(“Deputy Sterrick”); Jonelle Gerke (“Deputy Gerke”), and Anthony Wood (“Deputy Wood”),
as well as photographs of Mr. Puckrin, Mrs. Puckrin, and Mr. Kline, and the scene, and a
recording of a 911 call made by Mrs. Puckrin.
{¶8} The defense presented the testimony of Mr. Puckrin, Mrs. Puckrin, Mr.
Kline, Mr. Wunsch, and Terri Clutter Parrish (“Ms. Parrish”). Ms. Parrish became
acquainted with Mr. Puckrin when he volunteered at the Spire Institute, an athletic and
academic organization in Ashtabula County, Ohio, of which she is a former employee.
The 911-Call and Mrs. Puckrin
{¶9} On the evening of June 23, 2018, Mr. and Mrs. Puckrin were enjoying a
bottle of wine at a local winery after dining out. Mrs. Puckrin informed Mr. Puckrin that
Mr. Kline, a recovering heroin addict, had “overdrawn their joint bank account.” According
to Mrs. Puckrin, Mr. Puckrin told her “we’re done.” She threw her glass of wine at him
and her wedding rings, stormed out of the winery, and began walking down the road. Mr.
Puckrin chased after her in his truck.
{¶10} Mrs. Puckrin testified that she was quite intoxicated and irrational, which
she believes was due to the alcohol she ingested combined with the recent dosage
increase of her Prozac medication. She called Mr. Puckrin’s sister-in-law, Julie Puckrin,
to come get her. Mr. Puckrin called her and asked her where she was approximately ten
3
minutes later. He found Mrs. Puckrin a short distance down the road. It is unclear
whether he forced her into the truck, as she initially told dispatch and the deputies, or if
she went voluntarily, as Mrs. Puckrin testified on the stand.
{¶11} While she was in the truck, Mrs. Puckrin first called her other son, Mr.
Wunsch. She did not remember doing so because she was “drunk.” On the stand, Mr.
Wunsch described Mrs. Puckrin as the “most intoxicated I’ve probably ever seen her,”
“she was upset and – overemotional.” He could hear Mr. Puckrin in the background
saying, “they needed to have a conversation when they got back to the house” and that
“this was complete bullshit.” Mr. Wunsch could clearly hear Mrs. Puckrin punching Mr.
Puckrin, and the call was then disconnected.
{¶12} Mrs. Puckrin testified that she was hitting Mr. Puckrin in the truck on the
side of his head and his arm. She had first reported to dispatch and later, to the deputies,
that Mr. Puckrin bit her fingers, but later denied this when she testified to the jury. She
testified that Mr. Puckrin did not want to let her out of the car because “he’s not gonna let
me walk a curvy, windy road intoxicated.”
{¶13} Mrs. Puckrin’s second call in the truck was to 911. She got out of the vehicle
while she was on the call and proceeded to again walk down the road. When she testified
before the jury, she did not remember telling the 911 dispatcher that Mr. Puckrin would
not let her out of the truck, that Mr. Puckrin called Mr. Kline threatening him, or that she
talked to her son, Mr. Wunsch. She also did not recall telling the dispatcher that Mr.
Puckrin “threatened to whoop the shit out of my son.”
{¶14} Deputy Wall from the Ashtabula County Sheriff’s Office was working as a
dispatcher when he received a 911 call from a “frantic woman.” She identified herself as
4
Mrs. Puckrin, and reported that Mr. Puckrin was trying to get her into his truck and then
would not let her out. She told Deputy Wall that Mr. Puckrin was driving “80 miles an hour
on South River Road.” Deputy Wall testified that while they were on the call, Mrs. Puckrin
got out of the vehicle and told him that Mr. Puckrin was threatening to go to her residence
and assault her son, Mr. Kline. She would not stay in one place despite Deputy Wall’s
direction to do so. Deputy Wall informed Deputy Sterrick to respond to Mrs. Puckrin’s
location and sent Deputy Gerke and Deputy Wood to the Puckrins’ residence.
{¶15} Deputy Sterrick received the dispatch that Mrs. Puckrin was being “pulled
into” Mr. Puckrin’s truck. He had difficulty locating Mrs. Puckrin because she was walking
down the road. When he did, he noticed she was intoxicated and had blood stains on her
clothing. She did not want to press domestic violence charges against Mr. Puckrin, but
the department decided to file two counts of domestic violence against Mr. Puckrin for
assaulting Mrs. Puckrin and, later, Mr. Kline.
{¶16} While Mrs. Puckrin was talking to Deputy Sterrick, she saw her son, Mr.
Wunsch, pull up. Deputy Sterrick refused to let her go home with Mr. Wunsch and wanted
her to “sign something,” to which she said, “I am drunk. I’m not signing anything.” She
eventually did go home with Mr. Wunsch, and, by that time, Mr. Puckrin had already been
taken away by the police.
{¶17} Mr. Puckrin testified that when Mrs. Puckrin told him at the winery that Mr.
Kline had overdrawn their joint bank account, he told her, “I’m done with the situation.”
He was very upset because Mrs. Puckrin was telling him about “the money disappearing,
and items being stolen from their house to purchase drug paraphernalia.” He walked
around the winery looking for Mrs. Puckrin after she stormed away. Approximately ten
5
minutes later, he called her and realized she was walking down the road. He took off his
shirt because it was soaked with wine and began driving. When he finally found her, she
was talking to someone on the phone. She got into the truck, started hitting him, and bit
him on the bicep.
{¶18} After Mrs. Puckrin got out of the truck, he proceeded to drive home and
called Mr. Wunsch to pick up Mrs. Puckrin. Mr. Wunsch was on Route 84 on his way
back from work. Despite Mrs. Puckrin’s earlier accounts to dispatch and the deputies,
both Mr. and Mrs. Puckrin testified that the truck Mr. Puckrin was driving could not handle
high speeds or drive over 40-45 miles per hour without shaking.
The Altercation at the Puckrins’ Home
{¶19} Deputy Gerke arrived first at the scene of the Puckrins’ home. As she pulled
into the driveway, she observed Mr. Puckrin, who did not have a shirt on, “over top of” Mr.
Kline on the front porch, and “it appeared [Mr. Puckrin] was choking him.”
{¶20} Deputy Gerke got out of her cruiser and told Mr. Puckrin to “come here,”
and “that he was under arrest.” She testified she was arresting him because she
observed him assaulting another male. According to Deputy Gerke, Mr. Puckrin refused
and told her that she was on his property and that “he didn’t have to listen to me.” She
ordered him to walk towards her with his hands behind his back. He refused to comply.
He eventually walked towards her, with his hands out, and again told Deputy Gerke that
she was on his property and “he didn’t have to listen to me.” She observed Mr. Kline sit
up and noticed that his white tank top was ripped. She then testified that “[a]s I was
walking towards him, and he was walking towards me, he raised his arms over his head
and got into a – a bladed stance.” She described a “bladed stance” as “like a fighting
6
stance” where the body is turned a bit with fists raised. He was about an arm’s length
away – in striking distance – and was pulling his fist back as if about to punch her.
{¶21} Deputy Wood, who had just arrived on the scene, took Mr. Puckrin down
with Deputy Gerke’s assistance. Deputy Gerke observed Mr. Puckrin punch Deputy
Wood and told Mr. Puckrin to stop. She said Mr. Puckrin was lying on his back and
Deputy Wood was attempting to take control of Mr. Puckrin to put handcuffs on him. She
then observed Mr. Puckrin attempt to put his hand on Deputy Wood’s firearm. Mr. Puckrin
managed to get the holster latch/clip off the gun. Deputy Gerke then grabbed his hand,
and with both of her hands, began to pry each finger off the gun. Both she and Deputy
Wood were telling Mr. Puckrin to stop fighting, and when Mr. Puckrin had his hand on
Deputy Wood’s firearm, to “let go of his gun.” Mr. Puckrin did not comply with either order.
After Mr. Puckrin was handcuffed, she observed that Mr. Kline had removed his shirt and
had visible injuries on his chest and neck. Due to Mr. Kline’s injuries, she decided to
press charges of domestic violence against Mr. Puckrin.
{¶22} Deputy Wood arrived on scene approximately 30 seconds after Deputy
Gerke. He testified that as he pulled into the Puckrins’ driveway, he observed Deputy
Gerke approach two males, later identified as Mr. Puckrin and Mr. Kline. Mr. Puckrin was
standing over Mr. Kline, and “it looked like they were in a struggle.” He saw Deputy Gerke
approach Mr. Puckrin and say something which he could not hear. He then observed Mr.
Puckrin approach Deputy Gerke very aggressively. “He yelled something along the lines
of, you’re not gonna tell me what to – and at that time he was blading his body in a fighting
stance. He had started to draw back his arm.” Deputy Wood described “blading” as a
“fighting stance, when you go to punch somebody, most people turn their bodies to the
7
side, and he started pulling his arm back like he was going to strike her,” with clenched
fists.
{¶23} Deputy Woods started sprinting towards Mr. Puckrin with the intention of
stopping him from striking Deputy Gerke. He described Mr. Puckrin as appearing to grit
his teeth with a red, angry face. Once Deputy Wood reached Mr. Puckrin, he was “taken
to the ground, and he began to fight with us.” He ordered Mr. Puckrin to stop fighting and
to put his hands behind his back. Mr. Puckrin refused to do so and continued to strike
the deputy with his fists while Deputy Wood was on top of him. Deputy Wood and Deputy
Gerke both testified Deputy Wood and Mr. Puckrin were chest to chest, fighting on the
ground. Deputy Wood could hear Deputy Gerke give orders to Mr. Puckrin, who
repeatedly refused to comply.
{¶24} Deputy Wood started to deliver what is called “distraction or compliance
blows, which are open-handed strikes using the palm of your hand into somebody’s face,
trying to get him to stop fighting.” But Mr. Puckrin continued to keep fighting. Deputy
Wood felt tugging on his duty belt but did not know that Mr. Puckrin was attempting to
retrieve his firearm. He heard Deputy Gerke start yelling, “Let go of his gun. Let go of
his gun.” At that point, Deputy Wood realized Mr. Puckrin was pulling on his gun, so he
started striking Mr. Puckrin to get him to stop what he was doing, including striking Mr.
Puckrin with his fists, mostly on the front of his head.
{¶25} Deputy Wood further testified that he never held Mr. Puckrin in a choke hold,
but at that one point he did have his hand on Mr. Puckrin’s throat because Mr. Puckrin
was trying to move. After the altercation, he noticed the holster hood or clip that keeps
the firearm in place was down. Once the struggle was over, the deputies were able to
8
get control of Mr. Puckrin, and he was handcuffed. Because Mr. Puckrin received cuts
from the fighting, an ambulance was called.
{¶26} After Mr. Puckrin was taken to jail and his possessions were checked in,
Deputy Wood took it upon himself to go back to the Puckrins’ residence and give Mrs.
Puckrin her wedding rings. Mr. Wunsch, Mr. Kline, and Mrs. Puckrin were there, and
Deputy Wood does not recall telling them that “I don’t think he was going for my gun.”
{¶27} Mr. Kline testified that Mr. Puckrin has never assaulted him. He admitted
that he took some fire sticks and sold them and that he had some money in the Puckrins’
joint bank account. He withdrew more money than he had in their account and over
drafted it.
{¶28} Mr. Kline further testified that on the night of the incident, he was at home
sleeping and “detoxing off of heroin.” He stated that Mr. Puckrin came into his room and
told him, “hey, come outside. We need to talk.” Mr. Kline followed Mr. Puckrin outside.
Mr. Kline testified that at that point he knew something was wrong and that Mr. Puckrin
had “found out about something,” but he “just didn’t know what exactly it was at that point.”
He denied that Mr. Puckrin choked him. He also remembered Mr. Puckrin saying to
Deputy Gerke upon her arrival, “[t]his is my house. What are you doing here?” He did
not remember Deputy Gerke saying anything.
{¶29} He observed Deputy Wood tackle Mr. Puckrin to the ground and hold Mr.
Puckrin in a choke hold with his back to Deputy Wood. He testified that Mr. Puckrin’s
hands were not on Deputy Wood’s gun and that Mr. Puckrin was struggling to breathe.
“His face was turning red, his lips were going blue, and his eyes were starting to go.
That’s when I told him, ‘Randy, just’ – because he was trying to breathe. He was pulling
9
at the officer’s arm. And I told Randy, I was like, ‘Just stop. He’ll let go as soon as you
stop trying to pull his arm off.’”
{¶30} Mr. Kline testified that he did not see Mr. Puckrin elbow or punch Deputy
Wood and that the deputies never issued Mr. Puckrin any commands. Deputy Wood “just
tackled him.” He also did not know how his tank top got torn or why his throat and the
back of his neck were red. Mr. Kline testified that Deputy Gerke and Deputy Wood were
lying when they stated that Mr. Puckrin raised his fist at Deputy Gerke and that Deputy
Wood was on top of Mr. Puckrin chest-to-chest. He testified that Mr. Puckrin never
punched Deputy Wood or attempted to grab Deputy Wood’s firearm.
{¶31} Mr. Puckrin testified that when he arrived home, he went to Mr. Kline’s room
and told him to “get up, we need to go outside and have a talk.” He said that Mr. Kline
did not give him a hard time and followed him out of the door. When asked how he was
feeling, Mr. Puckrin testified that “Oh, I was going home to get some answers.” Once Mr.
Kline and Mr. Puckrin were outside, Mr. Puckrin testified that he “ended up directing [Mr.
Kline] backwards. He ended up in a laying-down position.” Mr. Puckrin said he had his
hand on Mr. Kline’s collarbone, and he was “asking [Mr. Kline], ‘I want the truth.’ That’s
all the more I got to say to him. I didn’t get to ask him what it was about, what I’d went to
home to ask him about, because at this point I see a Sheriff’s car come down the road.”
{¶32} When Deputy Gerke approached the porch, Mr. Puckrin testified that he
started towards her and said “I’m Randy Puckrin, this is my property. And I asked her, I
says, what are you doing here?” He denied that he put up his arms in a fighting stance
and testified that he tends to “talk with my hands,” stating, “I move my hands sometimes
when I talk.” He observed Deputy Wood pull up the driveway. He testified that Deputy
10
Woods “blasted me to grounds, like a vicious tackle. I mean, I had no idea what was
going on at that time.” He denied that he was threatening Deputy Gerke or getting ready
to strike her. Mr. Puckrin testified that Deputy Gerke did not tell him he was under arrest.
He denied punching or elbowing Deputy Wood. He testified that Deputy Wood had him
in a choke hold, which caused him to black out momentarily, and that he had the wind
knocked out of him when Deputy Wood knocked him to the ground.
{¶33} Mr. Puckrin further testified that he was not physically aggressive with
anyone that day. The marks on Mr. Kline could “have been from laying down on the deck,
yes, possibly.” Like Mr. Kline, Mr. Puckrin testified that Deputy Gerke was lying when she
said he was “within an arm’s reach of her” and that he raised his fists to her, and that she
never made the statements that he was to put his hands behind his back and that he was
under arrest. Mr. Puckrin had no idea why the deputies were on his property, and he
never fought with them. He never punched Deputy Wood nor grabbed Deputy Wood’s
firearm. He was also quite upset that Deputy Wood would take his wife’s wedding rings
from his checked-in possessions at the jail and return them to Mrs. Puckrin.
Conviction and Sentence
{¶34} The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to the one count of obstruction of
business and not guilty on the remaining counts of assault and aggravated robbery. Mr.
Puckrin’s motion for acquittal was denied. He was subsequently sentenced to 60 days in
jail and two years of intensive community control sanctions.
{¶35} We stayed Mr. Puckrin’s sentence pending this appeal.
{¶36} Mr. Puckrin now raises two assignments of error for our review:
11
{¶37} “[1.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of the Defendant-Appellant in
denying his Motion for Acquittal made pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A).
{¶38} “[2.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of the Defendant-Appellant when
it returned a verdict of guilty against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
Sufficiency of the Evidence
{¶39} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Puckrin contends the trial court erred in
denying his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal because the state failed to present sufficient
evidence that he obstructed official business. More specifically, he contends the state
failed to produce any evidence that he committed an act that hampered or impeded the
officers’ investigation.
{¶40} “[T]he standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is ‘whether
after viewing the probative evidence and the inference[s] drawn therefrom in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of
the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The claim of insufficient evidence invokes an
inquiry about due process. It raises a question of law, the resolution of which does not
allow the court to weigh the evidence.’ * * * ‘In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy[;]
[w]hether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict * * *.’” (Citations omitted.)
State v. Rice, 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2018-L-065 & 2018-L-066, 2019-Ohio-1415, ¶65.
“Sufficiency of the evidence tests the burden of production.” Id.; see also State v.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 390 (1997) (Cook, J., concurring).
{¶41} The jury found Mr. Puckrin guilty of one count of obstructing official
business, in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A) & (B). R.C. 2921.31 states, in relevant part, as
follows:
12
{¶42} “(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent,
obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the
public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official
in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.
{¶43} “(B) * * * If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to any
person, obstructing official business is a felony of the fifth degree.”
{¶44} Thus, in order to prove Mr. Puckrin obstructed official business, the state
was required to produce evidence on five essential elements: (1) an act by the defendant;
(2) done with the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay a public official; (3) that actually
hampers or impedes a public official; (4) while the official is acting in the performance of
a lawful duty; and (5) the defendant does the act without a privilege to do so. Girard v.
Oakman, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2017-T-0065, 2018-Ohio-1212, ¶36, quoting State v.
Brickner-Latham, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-05-26, 2006-Ohio-609, ¶25.
{¶45} Mr. Puckrin contends there is no evidence from which a jury could find that
he hampered or impeded the deputies from performing their duties. He argues that
Deputy Gerke testified that at the time he was walking down from the front porch, he was
not obstructing. He also contends that because the jury found him not guilty of aggravated
robbery (from his attempt to grab Deputy Wood’s firearm) and assault (from punching
Deputy Wood), he complied with the deputies’ commands. He was choked unconscious
and could not have possibly performed any such acts.
{¶46} A review of the record reveals the state more than carried its burden of
producing sufficient evidence to support a conviction for obstruction of official business.
Deputy Gerke testified that Mr. Puckrin stated several times “that this was his property”
13
and that “he did not have to listen to her.” Both deputies testified that Mr. Puckrin raised
his fist and got into a fighting stance and that it appeared Mr. Puckrin was about to strike
Deputy Gerke. Both deputies also testified that Mr. Puckrin refused to comply with their
orders that he was under arrest, to stop fighting and resisting arrest, and to let go of
Deputy Wood’s gun. Generally, an individual can be found guilty of obstructing official
business when he persists in performing a specific act when a police officer has told him
to stop. (Citations omitted.) Girard at ¶52.
{¶47} For example, in Girard, the appellant argued on appeal there was
insufficient evidence to support his conviction for obstructing official business because
his actions did not impede or hamper the officers’ domestic violence investigation. Id. at
¶32. We determined that the trial court justifiably found the appellant obstructed official
business and that his actions impeded the officers’ investigation of domestic violence
because the appellant was repeatedly uncooperative. Id. at ¶53. A review of the officer’s
recording revealed more than sufficient evidence that the appellant hampered or impeded
the investigation. Id. at ¶51. First, he initially denied that he had any guns in his bedroom.
Id. at ¶55-56. Upon discovering otherwise, the officer had to tell the appellant four
separate times to get away from his gun, with the appellant making statements between
each command. Id. at ¶51. He also would not stop walking towards his firearm. Id. at
¶53.
{¶48} Similarly, in State v. Parkhurst, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2015-T-0041, 2016-
Ohio-1018, we found the appellant’s argumentativeness constituted an affirmative act that
hampered or impeded the officer’s issuance of a citation. Id. at ¶31.
14
{¶49} Simply because the jury found Mr. Puckrin not guilty as to the charges of
assault and aggravated robbery does not equate to the state failing to carry its burden of
production on a conviction for obstruction of official business. The state introduced more
than sufficient evidence that Mr. Puckrin resisted arrest, took a fighting stance with the
officers, refused to stop fighting, and further, attempted to retrieve a deputy’s firearm.
Thus, it is clear the state more than carried its burden of production, since it introduced
multiple acts that hampered and/or impeded the deputies’ investigation.
{¶50} Mr. Puckrin’s first assignment of error is without merit.
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶51} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Puckrin contends his conviction is
against the manifest weight of the evidence because it is not supported by competent,
credible evidence which proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶52} “When reviewing a claim that a judgment was against the manifest weight
of the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh both the evidence
and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine
whether in resolving conflicts, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a
manifest miscarriage of justice that a new trial must be ordered.” (Citation omitted.) Rice
at ¶81. See also Thompkins at 387.
{¶53} “The discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in the
exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against a conviction. * * * The role
of the appellate court is to engage in a limited weighing of the evidence introduced at trial
in order to determine whether the state appropriately carried its burden of persuasion. * *
15
* The reviewing court must defer to the factual findings of the trier of fact as to the weight
to be given to the evidence and credibility of witnesses.” (Citation omitted.) Rice at ¶82.
{¶54} More specifically, Mr. Puckrin contends the jury’s verdict is not supported
by the manifest weight of the evidence because it is clear from the record that he was not
actually in the process of striking Deputy Gerke. Deputy Wood wrongly interpreted Mr.
Puckrin talking “with his hands” as a threat and “took him down.” At most, he claims, the
evidence shows he was simply trying to keep from losing consciousness with an officer’s
arm around his throat.
{¶55} The record belies Mr. Puckrin’s argument and weighs heavily in support of
the jury’s verdict. The state, using Mrs. Puckrin’s 911 call, the statements made to the
deputies, and the deputies’ testimony, depicted a scene where Mr. Puckrin repeatedly
refused to comply with the deputies’ orders. Deputy Gerke arrived on the scene of an
aggressive domestic dispute. Mr. Puckrin was standing over Mr. Kline, who was laid out
on the porch with his shirt ripped, and Mr. Puckrin appeared to be choking him. Mr.
Puckrin was immediately uncooperative, asking Deputy Gerke why she was on his
property. Deputy Gerke testified that when she told him he was under arrest and to come
towards her, he appeared to take an aggressive fighting stance. Deputy Wood, who could
not hear Deputy Gerke’s commands, observed Mr. Puckrin take a fighting stance and
draw his arm back as if he was going to strike Deputy Gerke. He then repeatedly refused
to stop fighting when the deputies were attempting to restrain him. Even Mr. Kline, whose
testimony mirrors much of Mr. Puckrin’s, testified that he ran up to Mr. Puckrin and told
him to stop fighting and resisting the deputies.
16
{¶56} A review of the record reveals that there are competing versions of events
between the state’s evidence and the defense. But simply because there is conflicting
testimony does not mean the manifest weight of the evidence does not support the jury’s
verdict or that the jury lost its way.
{¶57} “It is well settled that when assessing the credibility of witnesses, ‘[t]he
choice between the credibility of witnesses and their conflicting testimony rests solely with
the finder of fact and an appellate court may not substitute its own judgment for that of
the finder of fact.’ * * * Furthermore, if the evidence is susceptible to more than one
interpretation, a reviewing court must interpret it in a manner consistent with the verdict.”
(Citations omitted.) Rice at ¶84.
{¶58} Mr. Puckrin’s second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶59} The judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
17