State v. Coffman , 2015 Ohio 3722 ( 2015 )

[Cite as State v. Coffman, 2015-Ohio-3722.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 14CA010649
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
CRAIG A. COFFMAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 14CR089048
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: September 14, 2015
HENSAL, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Craig Coffman appeals a judgment entry of the Lorain County Court of Common
Pleas that convicted him of assault and domestic violence. For the following reasons, this Court
affirms.
I.
{¶2} According to LeAnn Nielsen, on the evening of January 4, 2014, she brought a
couple of women to her mother’s house to show them a sewing machine that she was trying to
sell. Mr. Coffman, her brother, was at the house when they arrived. He had been drinking and
there were beer bottles everywhere. After the women left, Ms. Nielsen began cleaning up the
mess. When Mr. Coffman came into the room, he asked Ms. Nielsen what her problem was and
she replied that they would never be able to sell the house if he kept it in that state. After the two
separated, Ms. Nielsen called her friend Tony Petito. She asked Mr. Petito to come over because
she was concerned about her brother. A little while later, Mr. Coffman announced that he was
2
leaving and asked Ms. Nielsen for beer money. Ms. Nielsen testified that, when she told Mr.
Coffman that he was too drunk to use their mother’s car, he punched her in the head with a
closed fist, causing her to fall to the floor. He then straddled her and continued punching her
until she lost consciousness. When Ms. Nielsen came to, she headed down to the basement
where there was a bedroom that she sometimes used. As she reached the bottom of the staircase
or just before, Mr. Coffman came up behind her and struck her with a baseball bat. He began
hitting her again but was interrupted by pounding on a basement window. According to Ms.
Nielsen, although she could not remember much of what happened next, she somehow got back
upstairs and observed Mr. Petito going after her brother. Ms. Nielsen testified that she did not
file a complaint against Mr. Coffman that night because she was concerned that he might be
released after only an hour and come back to the house. After talking about the process with an
officer again the next night, she went to the police station and filed a report.
{¶3} The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Coffman for one count of felonious assault and one
count of domestic violence. A jury found him guilty of domestic violence and assault. The trial
court sentenced him to 17 months imprisonment. Mr. Coffman has appealed, assigning three
errors, which we have rearranged and combined for ease of consideration.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION OF
LESS[E]R INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ASSAULT.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
3
{¶4} Mr. Coffman argues that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that
he assaulted Ms. Nielsen or committed domestic violence against her. Whether a conviction is
supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 386 (1997). In making this determination, we must view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution:
An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to
determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind
of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶5} The jury found Mr. Coffman guilty of assault under Revised Code Section
2903.13(A) and domestic violence under Section 2919.25(A). Section 2903.13(A) provides that
“[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another * * *.” Section
2919.25(A) contains similar language except that it provides that the harm must be against a
family or household member. “A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person
is aware that the person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a
certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such
circumstances probably exist.” R.C. 2901.22(B). Physical harm means “any injury, illness, or
other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(3).
{¶6} According to Mr. Coffman, the evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable
doubt that he knowingly caused physical harm to his sister. Ms. Nielsen testified, however, that
Mr. Coffman repeatedly punched her in the head, struck her with a bat, and pulled out her hair.
The State introduced photographs that a police officer took of Ms. Nielsen’s face after the
4
incident that show the bruising she suffered in the attack. This Court has also recognized that
hitting someone with a closed fist is an action which is likely to cause harm. State v. Good, 9th
Dist. Wayne Nos. 10CA0056, 10CA0057, 2011-Ohio-5077, ¶ 21. The jury, therefore, could
have reasonably inferred that Mr. Coffman knowingly caused or attempted to cause harm to Ms.
Nielsen. Id. Mr. Coffman’s second and third assignments of error are overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶7} Mr. Coffman also argues that his convictions are against the manifest weight of
the evidence. If a defendant asserts that a conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence,
an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine
whether, in resolving 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. Otten, 33 Ohio App. 3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). Weight of the evidence pertains to the
greater amount of credible evidence produced in a trial to support one side over the other side.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d at 387. An appellate court should only exercise its power to reverse a
judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence in exceptional cases. State v. Carson,
9th Dist. Summit No. 26900, 2013-Ohio-5785, ¶ 32, citing Otten at 340.
{¶8} Mr. Coffman argues that Ms. Nielsen’s testimony was not credible. He argues
that there were no witnesses to corroborate her testimony and that the only reason she pressed
charges against him was because a police officer pressured her. He also argues that, if he had
done what she alleged, she would not have refused medical attention and the officer would have
reacted differently to the situation.
5
{¶9} At trial, Mr. Coffman testified that, on the day of the alleged attack, he drove Ms.
Nielsen to the bar where she worked. He returned later to drive her home, but Ms. Nielsen
wanted to stay at the bar. Sometime later, a car arrived at the house, and two women helped Ms.
Nielsen down to her room. A little while later, Mr. Petito arrived and immediately went
downstairs. After Mr. Coffman heard arguing, he went downstairs and saw his sister sitting on
her bed crying. She had a cut on her face and her hair looked like it had been pulled. Mr. Petito
told him to go away and, when Mr. Coffman hesitated, punched him in the face. Mr. Coffman
ran upstairs and tried to use his phone, but Mr. Petito grabbed it from him and smashed it. Mr.
Coffman, therefore, decided to walk to a nearby gas station to call the police. When he arrived at
the gas station, he noticed a police cruiser in the parking lot, so he knocked on the window of the
cruiser and told the officer what had happened.
{¶10} The officer’s testimony did not support Mr. Coffman’s version of the events. It
was, however, consistent with Mr. Petito’s. According to Mr. Petito, when he arrived at Ms.
Nielsen’s mother’s house, no one answered the door. Because he knew Ms. Nielsen had a room
in the basement, he knocked on the basement windows, and Mr. Coffman subsequently let him in
the house. When Ms. Nielsen came upstairs, he saw that her face was beaten and that she was
holding a clump of her hair, so he grabbed Mr. Coffman and slammed him against a wall, then
dragged him outside and threw him off the porch. He went back inside to attend to Ms. Nielsen
and ask her what had happened. As she described for him what had occurred, she also indicated
that she could not find her cell phone. It appears that Mr. Petito got the impression from her
statements that Mr. Coffman may have taken it, so he left Ms. Nielsen and went to find Mr.
Coffman to get the phone back. Once outside, Mr. Petito headed toward the main road because
he assumed that was the direction Mr. Coffman would have headed. When he reached the road,
6
he saw that there was a police cruiser in the parking lot of a gas station. The officer was not in
the cruiser, so he went inside and spotted the officer getting some coffee. He told the officer
what had happened to Ms. Nielsen, and the officer told him that he would follow Mr. Petito back
to the house after he paid. Mr. Petito testified that, while he was waiting outside for the officer,
he saw Mr. Coffman in the parking lot, so he grabbed him and told him to go over to the police
cruiser, to which the officer had returned. The officer corroborated Mr. Petito’s testimony that
Mr. Petito approached him while he was getting coffee inside the gas station and that Mr. Petito
sent Mr. Coffman over to talk to him at his cruiser. The officer explained that he had to let Mr.
Coffman go after asking him a few questions, however, because he did not have any evidence to
support Mr. Petito’s allegations as he had not yet spoken with the alleged victim.
{¶11} It was within the jury’s province to determine the weight to be given the evidence.
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St. 2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. In light of the
consistency between Ms. Nielsen’s testimony, Mr. Petito’s testimony, and the officer’s
testimony, we cannot say that the jury clearly lost its way when it chose to accept their version of
the facts instead of Mr. Coffman’s, which was not supported by any other evidence. Mr.
Coffman’s first assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶12} Mr. Coffman’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
7
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of
this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
CARR, J.
SCHAFER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
ROBERT CABRERA, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and MARY R. SLANCZKA, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Appellee.