FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. 2014 CR-B 000193
BRADLEY R. HARP, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATHAN R. SHAKER,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Defendant-Appellant, David Stark, appeals from his conviction
in the Wayne County Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
On an evening in February 2014, the victim in this matter,
the mother of Stark's young daughter, brought her
daughter to Stark's apartment to celebrate his birthday.
The victim only stayed for a short while, and Stark became
upset when she attempted to leave with his daughter.
According to Stark, the two shouted while he held his
daughter and tried to persuade the victim to stay, but he
eventually relented and allowed her to leave. According to
the victim, Stark stopped her from leaving, choked her around
the neck, and threatened to kill her. Following the incident,
the victim drove directly to the police station and reported
that Stark had attacked her.
As a result of the foregoing incident, Stark was charged with
one count of domestic violence. Stark elected to try the
matter to a jury, and, following a trial, the jury found him
guilty. The court sentenced him to jail time and two years of
Stark now appeals from his conviction and raises three
assignments of error for our review.
OF ERROR I
STARK'S CONVICTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE KNOWINGLY CAUSED OR ATTEMPTED TO
CAUSE PHYSICAL HARM TO [THE VICTIM]
In his first assignment of error, Stark argues that his
domestic violence conviction is based on insufficient
evidence. Specifically, he argues that there was no evidence
he knowingly caused or attempted to cause the victim physical
harm. We disagree.
A review of the sufficiency of the State's evidence and
the manifest weight of the evidence adduced at trial are
separate and legally distinct determinations. State v.
Gulley, 9th Dist. Summit No. 19600, 2000 WL 277908, *1
(Mar. 15, 2000). When reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence, this Court must review the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the