Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. Adam Good

October 3, 2011

STATE OF OHIO APPELLEE
v.
ADAM GOOD APPELLANT



C.A. Nos. 10CA0056 APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE Nos. CRB-10-08-1172 CRB-10-09-1218

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Belfance, Presiding Judge.

Cite as

State v. Good,

ss:

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

{¶1} Adam Good appeals his convictions for domestic violence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.

{¶2} On August 4, 2010, Mr. Good and his then girlfriend, Kally Braucher, were involved in an altercation in a WalMart parking lot. Three weeks later, Mr. Good and Ms. Braucher were involved in another altercation at Mr. Good's home. In both instances, police officers responded to reports of domestic violence.

{¶3} Mr. Good was charged with and, following separate bench trials, convicted of domestic violence in both instances. He has appealed his convictions, raising three assignments of error. The cases have been consolidated, and we rearrange his assignments of error for ease of discussion.

II.

MANIFEST WEIGHT

{¶4} Mr. Good challenges both of his convictions as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. In reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the 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 (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340.

{¶5} In reversing a conviction as being against the manifest weight of the evidence, "the appellate court sits as the 'thirteenth juror' and disagrees with the factfinder's resolution of the conflicting testimony." State v. Thomas, 9th Dist. Nos. 22990, 22991, 2006-Ohio-4241, at ¶8, citing State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 388. Accordingly, "this Court's 'discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.'" Thomas at ¶8, quoting State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175.

{¶6} Both of Mr. Good's convictions were for violating R.C. 2919.25(A) by committing domestic violence. R.C. 2919.25(A) provides that "[n]o 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." R.C. 2901.22(B). Mr. Good does not contest that Ms. Braucher, with whom he has a daughter and with whom he lives, is a family or household member under R.C. 2919.25(A). Instead, in both assignments of error, he alleges that the trial court lost its way when it determined that he knowingly harmed or attempted to harm her.

AUGUST 26, 2010, INCIDENT ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

"DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.