State v. Watkins , 2022 Ohio 500 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Watkins, 2022-Ohio-500.]
.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO/CITY OF :
MIDDLETOWN,
: CASE NO. CA2021-06-058
Appellee,
: OPINION
2/22/2022
- vs - :
:
CHRISTIAN WATKINS,
:
Appellant.
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MIDDLETOWN MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. CRB 2100605
Ashley M. Bretland, for appellee.
Christopher P. Frederick, for appellant.
PIPER, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Christian Watkins, appeals from his conviction for domestic
violence in the Middletown Municipal Court. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
{¶2} Watkins was charged by complaint with domestic violence in violation of R.C.
2919.25(A), a first-degree misdemeanor. The complaint alleged that on or about March 8,
2021, Watkins inflicted physical injuries on his wife and threatened to kill her by slitting her
wrists.
Butler CA2021-06-058
{¶3} Watkins pled not guilty to the charge and a bench trial was held on April 29,
2021. The state presented evidence from the victim and two police officers, one from the
Atrium Hospital Campus Police and another from the Middletown Police Department.
Watkins testified in his own defense. The testimony at trial established the following facts.
{¶4} On March 7, 2021, Watkins and his wife lived together in a residence located
in Middletown, Ohio. That evening, Watkins and his wife were drinking alcoholic beverages
and later became involved in an argument.
{¶5} The victim testified that the two had been arguing throughout the evening. At
one point, Watkins attempted to leave their residence with some of the victim's belongings,
so the victim hit Watkins' car window with a bottle, shattering the glass. The victim left the
residence for a brief period of time with her friend. She later returned once Watkins left the
residence.
{¶6} Watkins returned shortly thereafter and became angry when he learned that
the police had been called to their residence earlier. Though the victim believed that the
situation had calmed, Watkins soon escalated the situation to include physical violence.
The victim testified that beginning late March 7 and continuing into March 8 Watkins started
punching and hitting her in the head and punching her in the face. She stated that Watkins
grabbed her by the hair and stomped on her stomach. She also testified that Watkins held
a knife to her and told her that he was going to kill her if she tried to run. Watkins then told
her to take a shower.
{¶7} The victim testified that when she returned to their shared room, Watkins was
still angry and told her that the only way he would forgive her is if she agreed to have sex
with him. The two had sex, but Watkins was still aggressive. Watkins then told the victim
that she needed to pray and "to ask God to forgive me for all my sins." The victim ended
up falling asleep while praying.
-2-
Butler CA2021-06-058
{¶8} The next morning, the victim was awakened by her grandparents knocking at
the front door. When she realized that Watkins was still asleep, the victim testified that she
ran from the residence, naked, wrapped only in a blanket. The victim's grandparents
transported her to Atrium Medical Center. The state admitted several photographs of the
victim while in the hospital that show injuries to her face, mouth, head, stomach, arms, and
legs.
{¶9} The state then called Atrium Medical Campus Police Officer Jordan Jenkins
who met the victim in the Emergency Room. Officer Jenkins observed the victim wrapped
only in a blanket with visible injuries. The victim was crying and told Officer Jenkins that
she had gotten into an argument with her husband and that he punched and kicked her
multiple times.
{¶10} The final state witness was Officer James Lusk with the Middletown Police
Department. Officer Lusk also observed an emotionally distraught victim in the Emergency
Room with visible injuries to her face and body. The victim told Officer Lusk that she had
been in an argument with her husband. When she tried to leave, her husband threw her
down, started beating on her face and chest, and kicked her. Officer Lusk photographed
the victim's injuries and helped her prepare a victim statement.
{¶11} Watkins testified that he and the victim argued on the date of the domestic
violence incident but denied physically harming her. Watkins stated that the victim had
consumed five tall alcoholic beverages that evening and told him that she was going to self-
harm and blame him for the injuries. Watkins testified that the victim had a history of
inflicting self-harm and blaming it on him. He also claimed that the victim was angry with
him because he told her that he wanted a divorce and had brought an ex-girlfriend to their
residence. Watkins testified that he went to bed around midnight and was awakened by
the victim's father. After learning that a criminal complaint had been filed, Watkins called
-3-
Butler CA2021-06-058
the Middletown Police and turned himself in.
{¶12} The trial court found Watkins guilty of domestic violence and sentenced him
to 180 days in jail. Watkins now appeals, raising a single assignment of error for review:
{¶13} MR. WATKINS' CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE.
{¶14} In his sole assignment of error, Watkins argues that his conviction is not
supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. We find Watkins' argument to be without
merit.
{¶15} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge examines the "inclination of the
greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue rather
than the other." State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶
14. To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the
reviewing court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the
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. Graham, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-07-095, 2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66. "While appellate
review includes the responsibility to consider the credibility of witnesses and weight given
to the evidence, 'these issues are primarily matters for the trier of fact to decide.'" State v.
Barnes, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010-06-009, 2011-Ohio-5226, ¶ 81, quoting State v.
Walker, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-04-085, 2007-Ohio-911, ¶ 26. An appellate court,
therefore, will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of the evidence only in
extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily in favor
of acquittal. State v. Gerdes, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-03-056, 2019-Ohio-913, ¶ 11.
{¶16} Watkins was convicted of one count of domestic violence, a first-degree
-4-
Butler CA2021-06-058
misdemeanor. Pursuant to R.C. 2919.25(A), "[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt
to cause physical harm to a family or household member." Physical harm means "any
injury, illness, or other physiological impairment regardless of its gravity or duration." R.C.
2901.01(A)(3).
{¶17} In light of the evidence presented, we find the trial court did not err by finding
Watkins guilty of domestic violence. This case came down to the credibility of the
witnesses. The state presented the testimony of the victim who testified that she was
married to Watkins and had been physically harmed by him during a violent physical
encounter. The victim's testimony was corroborated by officers who observed the injuries
and took photographs of the victim in the Emergency Room. Although Watkins denied
harming the victim and claimed that her injuries were the result of self-harm, the trial court,
as trier of fact, was in the best position to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. Following
the presentation of all evidence, the trial court found the victim to be more credible than
Watkins. "[W]hen conflicting evidence is presented at trial, a conviction is not against the
manifest weight of the evidence simply because the tier of fact believed the prosecution
testimony." State v. Doyle, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-02-009, 2021-Ohio-4243, ¶ 47.
Based on the facts detailed above, we find that Watkins' conviction for domestic violence is
not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Watkins' sole assignment of error is
overruled.
{¶18} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
-5-