State v. Hilton , 2015 Ohio 5198 ( 2015 )

[Cite as State v. Hilton, 2015-Ohio-5198.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO/CITY OF HAMILTON, :
CASE NO. CA2015-03-064
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
OPINION
: 12/14/2015
- vs -
:
RICHARD HILTON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. 15CRB00320
Neal D. Schuett, Hamilton City Prosecutor, 345 High Street, 2nd Floor, Hamilton Ohio 45011,
for plaintiff-appellee
Christopher P. Frederick, 304 North Second Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-
appellant
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Richard Hilton, appeals his conviction in the Hamilton
Municipal Court for domestic violence.
{¶ 2} Appellant was charged in January 2015 with one count of domestic violence.
The state alleged that on December 27, 2014, appellant grabbed his former wife, Shannon
Hilton, by the face and pressed his thumbs in her eyes, causing her physical harm. A bench
Butler CA2015-03-064
trial held in February 2015 revealed the following facts.
{¶ 3} The parties were divorced in 2013 but continued to spend time together
thereafter. They have three children. On December 27, 2014, the parties and two of their
daughters spent the day shopping before going out to dinner. During the drive back to
appellant's house, appellant and Shannon began to argue about their relationship and the
fact Shannon did not want to stay with appellant for the night. Upon arriving at his house,
appellant parked the car near a barn away from the house. The group exited the vehicle and
the children went inside the house. Appellant and Shannon continued to argue outside. By
then, it was past 11:00 p.m., there was no light on the barn, and it was dark as appellant lives
out in the country.
{¶ 4} Shannon testified she was yelling during the argument because she was getting
angry. Appellant asked her to stop screaming, told her to calm down, and then put an open
hand over her mouth. Shannon testified that appellant tightly squeezed her cheeks for a few
seconds, applying pressure. Upset, Shannon took a step back and told appellant, "get your
hand off of me," while using profanities. Appellant responded by grabbing the top of
Shannon's face. Subsequently, with his hands on both sides of Shannon's face and his
thumbs on her eyelids, appellant applied pressure with his thumbs for a few seconds, which
caused immediate pain in Shannon's left eye. Shocked, Shannon told appellant, "I can't
believe you just stuck your thumb in my eye," and tried to leave. Appellant denied poking her
in the eye but apologized if he had. Appellant then pulled Shannon backwards, stating "you
don't have to leave, I'm just trying to talk to you." Shannon reiterated her decision to leave.
{¶ 5} Shortly after, appellant's father, accompanied by one of the parties' daughters,
came outside and asked if everything was okay. According to both parties, appellant replied,
"yes, everything is okay." Appellant testified that Shannon also "said at that time that
everything is okay." Appellant subsequently apologized and Shannon left.
-2-
Butler CA2015-03-064
{¶ 6} The next evening, the police were contacted; a police officer met with Shannon
and took pictures of her injuries. The photographs, which were admitted into evidence at
trial, showed red marks on both of her cheeks and a scratch down by her neck. The
photographs also showed that the outer white part of her left eye was red. Shannon testified
her injuries were from appellant's "hands crushing my face." Shannon testified appellant was
angry during the incident and that he was speaking louder than normal. Shannon also
testified that while it was dark, she "could clearly see" appellant and "see in his eyes" when
"he was in my face and grabbed me[.]"
{¶ 7} Appellant admitted he wanted to spend additional time with Shannon that night
and that she did not, but denied he was angry about her refusal. Rather, appellant testified
he was angry at the fact Shannon was yelling and screaming at him, but denied his voice
was louder than normal. Appellant testified he did not remember putting his hand over
Shannon's mouth. With regard to putting his thumbs on her eyelids, appellant testified he
was trying to put his hands on her face to calm her down as he had done multiple times
during their marriage. However, because it was "total darkness" and "pitch black," he could
not see his hands or her face and did not know where his hands landed. Appellant testified
he did not mean to hurt Shannon. When he saw her the following morning, appellant
observed redness in Shannon's eye. Only then did he believe he might have actually poked
her in the eye.
{¶ 8} Both parties testified that during their marriage, it was common for appellant to
hold Shannon's face with his hands as a sign of affection or to calm her down. However, on
those prior occasions, appellant had never put his thumbs on her eyelids and Shannon had
never sustained an injury. Shannon testified that appellant put his hands on her head during
the incident out of anger, and not out of affection. Both parties testified that following the
incident, they continued to spend time together as a family.
-3-
Butler CA2015-03-064
{¶ 9} On February 20, 2015, at the close of the bench trial, the trial court found
appellant guilty of domestic violence. The trial court specifically stated it found Shannon "to
be testifying truthfully and honestly. Did not believe she was lying in any way." The trial court
further stated it did not find appellant's testimony to be credible, including his assertion it was
so dark outside that he could not see his hands, and that it did not believe his testimony as
much as it believed Shannon's testimony.
{¶ 10} Appellant appeals, raising the following two assignments of error:
{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 12} THE STATE PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT MR.
HILTON OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 14} MR. HILTON'S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 15} Appellant argues his domestic violence conviction is not supported by sufficient
evidence and is against the manifest weight of the evidence because the state failed to prove
he knowingly caused Shannon's injuries. Appellant asserts that Shannon's injuries were
clearly accidental because (1) he could not see his hands or Shannon's face as it was "total
darkness," (2) he was calm, was not acting aggressively or angrily, and in fact was trying to
be the peacemaker, (3) he was surprised he had poked Shannon in the eye, (4) Shannon
told his father everything was okay, and (5) Shannon waited 23 hours to report the incident.
{¶ 16} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction,
an appellate court's function is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine
whether such evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would convince
the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jones, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2012-03-049, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 17.
-4-
Butler CA2015-03-064
{¶ 17} In determining whether a judgment is against the manifest weight of the
evidence in a bench trial, an appellate court will not reverse a conviction where the trial court
could reasonably conclude from substantial evidence that the state has proven the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at ¶ 18. In conducting its review, an appellate court
examines the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the
credibility of witnesses, and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trial
court "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. Cooper, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2010-05-113, 2011-Ohio-1630, ¶ 7. The discretionary power to grant a new trial should
be exercised only in exceptional cases where the evidence weighs heavily against the
conviction. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).
{¶ 18} In making this analysis, the reviewing court must be mindful that the original
trier of fact was in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be
given the evidence. Cooper at ¶ 7. A determination that a conviction is supported by the
manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency. State v.
Church, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-04-070, 2012-Ohio-3877, ¶ 10.
{¶ 19} Appellant was convicted of domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A),
which states: "No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family
or household member." "A person acts knowingly, regardless of his purpose, when he is
aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain
nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he is aware that such
circumstances probably exist." R.C. 2901.22(B).
{¶ 20} Absent a defendant's admission regarding his knowledge, whether a person
acts knowingly can only be determined from all the surrounding facts and circumstances,
including the doing of the act itself. State v. Robinson, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2005-11-
-5-
Butler CA2015-03-064
029, 2007-Ohio-354, ¶ 18. "[I]f a given result is probable, a person will be held to have acted
knowingly to achieve it because one is charged by the law with knowledge of the reasonable
and probable consequences of his own acts." Id.{¶ 21} After a careful review of the record, we find that the trial court did not lose its
way in convicting appellant of domestic violence. Given Shannon's testimony that appellant
engaged in a physical confrontation when he placed an open hand over her mouth and tightly
squeezed her cheeks for a few seconds, and then put his thumbs on her eyelids and applied
pressure for a few seconds, which immediately caused pain in her left eye; the fact appellant
was angry during the argument; and Shannon's testimony that she could see appellant's face
during the physical confrontation, we find that the trial court could reasonably conclude that
appellant knowingly caused physical harm to Shannon. See Youngstown v. Dixon, 7th Dist.
Mahoning No. 07 MA 105, 2009-Ohio-1013. The fact that appellant was surprised he had
poked Shannon in the eye or that Shannon waited 23 hours to report the incident does not
render the poking in the eye an accident or one that was done unknowingly under R.C.
2901.22(B). See State v. Clark, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 83318, 2004-Ohio-2162.
{¶ 22} We decline to overturn the verdict because the trial court did not believe
appellant's testimony. It is well-established that when conflicting evidence is presented at
trial, a conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the trier
of fact believed the prosecution testimony. See State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-
06-143, 2011-Ohio-2207. Further, "[t]he decision whether, and to what extent, to credit the
testimony of particular witnesses is within the peculiar competence of the factfinder, who has
seen and heard the witness." State v. Rhines, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23486, 2010-Ohio-
3117, ¶ 39. Here, the trial court specifically stated it did not find appellant's testimony to be
credible. By contrast, the trial court found Shannon "to be testifying truthfully and honestly."
As the trier of fact in this case, the trial court was in the best position to judge the credibility of
-6-
Butler CA2015-03-064
the parties and the weight to be given the evidence. Dixon at ¶ 30.
{¶ 23} We therefore find that appellant's domestic violence conviction is not against
the manifest weight of the evidence. As a result, we also necessarily find that appellant's
conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. Church, 2012-Ohio-3877 at ¶ 10.
{¶ 24} Appellant's first and second assignments of error are accordingly overruled.
{¶ 25} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
-7-