State v. Wrana , 2021 Ohio 190 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Wrana, 
    2021-Ohio-190
    .]
    STATE OF OHIO                    )                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    )ss:                 NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF SUMMIT                 )
    STATE OF OHIO                                         C.A. No.      29623
    Appellee
    v.                                            APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
    ENTERED IN THE
    KIMBER LEE WRANA                                      BARBERTON MUNICIPAL COURT
    COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
    Appellant                                     CASE No.   19 CRB 01458
    DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
    Dated: January 27, 2021
    TEODOSIO, Judge.
    {¶1}    Defendant-Appellant, Kimber Lee Wrana, appeals from the judgment of the
    Barberton Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
    I.
    {¶2}    Ms. Wrana and her ex-husband, C.B., have one daughter together and participate
    in shared parenting. Ms. Wrana was scheduled to pick up her daughter from C.B.’s home one
    Sunday evening, but unforeseen events caused her to be late. She notified C.B. via Our Family
    Wizard that she would be late and arrived at his home about thirty or forty minutes past her
    scheduled pick-up time.        When she arrived, she backed her car into C.B.’s driveway and
    accidentally allowed her tires to come off his driveway and onto his grass.
    {¶3}    As a result of Ms. Wrana pulling onto C.B.’s grass, both C.B. and his fiancée
    emerged from the house.          C.B. accused Ms. Wrana of being intoxicated, and his fiancée
    immediately began using her cell phone to film the encounter. A disagreement ensued as Ms.
    2
    Wrana sought access to her daughter and C.B. demanded that Ms. Wrana leave without her.
    According to Ms. Wrana, both C.B. and his fiancée made aggressive physical contact with her at
    separate points and, in response, she pushed the fiancée in the chest and kicked C.B. to force them
    away. According to C.B. and his fiancée, Ms. Wrana pushed/kicked them absent any physical
    aggression on their parts. After Ms. Wrana kicked C.B., she returned to her car and left without
    her daughter.
    {¶4}     As a result of the foregoing incident, Ms. Wrana was charged with domestic
    violence as to C.B. and assault as to his fiancée. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, at which Ms.
    Wrana requested an instruction on self-defense. The court heard arguments from both parties, but
    ultimately refused to issue the instruction. The jury then returned verdicts of guilty on the domestic
    violence charge and not guilty on the assault charge. The court sentenced Ms. Wrana to a fine, jail
    sentence, and alcohol monitoring.
    {¶5}     Ms. Wrana now appeals from her conviction and raises one assignment of error for
    our review.
    II.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
    THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE
    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF SELF-DEFENSE CONSTITUTED PLAIN
    ERROR AND WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO THE PREJUDICE OF
    THE APPELLANT. [C.B.] HIMSELF TESTIFIED THAT HE SHOVED THE
    APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF THE DISPUTE, AND THE
    PARTIES’ DAUGHTER HELENE TESTIFIED THAT [C.B.] WAS
    PHYSICALLY AGGRESSIVE WITH HER AS WELL.         THERE WAS
    SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE A QUESTION IN THE MINDS OF
    REASONABLE JURORS CONCERNING THE ISSUE OF SELF-DEFENSE,
    AND THE JUDGE’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTION THEREFORE
    CONSTITUTED PLAIN ERROR AND MUST BE REVERSED.
    3
    {¶6}   In her sole assignment of error, Ms. Wrana argues that the trial court erred when it
    refused to instruct the jury on self-defense. For the following reasons, we reject her argument.
    {¶7}   “Requested jury instructions should ordinarily be given if they are correct
    statements of law, if they are applicable to the facts in the case, and if reasonable minds might
    reach the conclusion sought by the requested instruction.” State v. Adams, 
    144 Ohio St.3d 429
    ,
    
    2015-Ohio-3954
    , ¶ 240. “Self-defense requires that a defendant: (1) was not at fault in creating
    the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of
    death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of
    such force; and (3) did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” State v. Warren, 9th
    Dist. Summit No. 29455, 
    2020-Ohio-6990
    , ¶ 12, citing State v. Barnes, 
    94 Ohio St.3d 21
    , 24
    (2002).
    If, at the trial of a person who is accused of an offense that involved the person’s
    use of force against another, there is evidence presented that tends to support that
    the accused person used the force in self-defense * * *, the prosecution must prove
    beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person did not use the force in self-
    defense * * *.
    R.C. 2901.05(B)(1). “Thus, once there is evidence presented at trial that tends to support that the
    defendant acted in self-defense, the State must disprove one of the elements of self-defense beyond
    a reasonable doubt.” Warren at ¶ 12.
    {¶8}   There was significant disagreement at trial as to exactly how the incident between
    Ms. Wrana, C.B., and his fiancée unfolded. All three individuals testified, as did a neighbor of
    C.B.’s and his and Ms. Wrana’s thirteen-year-old daughter. The record reflects that one critical
    aspect of the State’s case against Ms. Wrana was the cell phone recording that C.B.’s fiancée made
    during the incident. The State relied on the recording extensively in its case-in-chief and, in
    opposing any self-defense instruction, argued that the recording contradicted any evidence Ms.
    4
    Wrana had offered in support of a claim of self-defense. Meanwhile, Ms. Wrana argued that the
    recording had not captured every moment, but, in any event, evidenced intimidation on the part of
    C.B. and his fiancée. The recording was played repeatedly at trial and was admitted into evidence.
    Nevertheless, it has not been made a part of the record on appeal.
    {¶9}    The appellate record must contain “[t]he original papers and exhibits thereto filed
    in the trial court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, including exhibits, and a certified copy of
    the docket and journal entries prepared by the clerk of the trial court * * *.” App.R. 9(A)(1). “It
    is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure that the record on appeal contains all matters necessary
    to allow this Court to resolve the issues on appeal.” State v. Farnsworth, 9th Dist. Medina No.
    15CA0038-M, 
    2016-Ohio-7919
    , ¶ 16. “This duty falls to the appellant because the appellant has
    the burden of establishing error in the trial court.” State v. Dalton, 9th Dist. Lorain No.
    09CA009589, 
    2009-Ohio-6910
    , ¶ 25. “[I]n the absence of portions of the record necessary for our
    review, we must presume regularity in the trial court’s proceedings and affirm its ruling.” State v.
    Jalwan, 9th Dist. Medina No. 09CA0065-M, 
    2010-Ohio-3001
    , ¶ 12.
    {¶10} Unfortunately, the appellate record herein is devoid of any exhibits entered at the
    trial court. In the absence of the cell phone recording that proved to be a critical piece of evidence
    at Ms. Wrana’s trial, this Court cannot say whether the trial court erred when it refused to instruct
    the jury on self-defense. It was Ms. Wrana’s burden, as the appellant, to ensure that the record on
    appeal was complete. See Farnsworth at ¶ 16. “Because the record does not contain all the matters
    necessary to allow us to resolve [her] arguments, we have no choice but to presume regularity in
    the proceedings and affirm the trial court’s judgment. State v. Miller, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29469,
    
    2020-Ohio-1209
    , ¶ 24. As such, Ms. Wrana’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
    5
    III.
    {¶11} Ms. Wrana’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Barberton
    Municipal Court is affirmed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Barberton Municipal
    Court, County of Summit, 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.
    THOMAS A. TEODOSIO
    FOR THE COURT
    CALLAHAN, P. J.
    HENSAL, J.
    CONCUR.
    APPEARANCES:
    JEFFREY JAKMIDES and TRACEY A. LASLO, Attorneys at Law, for Appellant.
    JENNIFER A. ROBERTS, Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 29623

Citation Numbers: 2021 Ohio 190

Judges: Teodosio

Filed Date: 1/27/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/27/2021