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.

The State of Ohio v. Michael S. Harbold

October 20, 2011

THE STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
MICHAEL S. HARBOLD DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Municiapl Court, Case No. CRB 1100057 JUDGMENT: Affirmed

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Farmer, J.

Cite as State v. Harbold,

JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.

OPINION

{¶1} On January 27, 2011, appellant, Michael Harbold, was charged with one count of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21. Said charge arose from an incident between appellant and his neighbors, Richard and Tracy McCormick, over appellant's dog trespassing on the McCormicks' property.

{¶2} A bench trial commenced on March 30, 2011. By judgment entry filed same date, the trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to ten days in jail.

{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:

I

{¶4} "THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT ADJUDICATING APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CHARGE OF AGGRAVATED MENACING WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED."

I

{¶5} Appellant claims his conviction of aggravated menacing was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.

{¶6} On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine 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 jury 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. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175. See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52. The granting of a new trial "should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction." Martin at 175.

{¶7} Appellant was convicted of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A) which states, "[n]o person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family."

{ΒΆ8} Appellant argues insufficient evidence was presented that he knowingly caused the complainant, Mr. McCormick, to believe he would cause serious physical harm to his person or property or his immediate family. Appellant concedes Mr. McCormick's wife, Tracy McCormick, testified she believed appellant would cause her serious physical harm, and has been scared every day since the incident. T. at 27, 29. However, appellant argues Mr. McCormick's testimony was inconsistent as to whether he believed appellant was ...


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.