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 v. Ham

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton

December 22, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CLARENCE HAM, Defendant-Appellant.

         Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court, Trial No. 16CRB-34134

          Paula Boggs Muething, City Solicitor, Natalia Harris, City Prosecutor, and Jennifer Bishop, Assistant City Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

          Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and David Hoffmann, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.

          OPINION

          ZAYAS, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Clarence Ham appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal Court convicting him of telecommunications harassment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court, but remand the cause to the trial court for a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect that Ham was convicted of the amended telecommunications charge.

         Facts

         {¶2} Clarence Ham was charged with one count of telecommunications harassment in violation of R.C. 2917.21(B), a misdemeanor of the first degree. The complaint alleged that Ham had made a telecommunication with the purpose to threaten Kiesha Rice. The complaint further alleged that Ham contacted Rice multiple times on her cell phone and made threats to cause her bodily harm.

         {¶3} Ham pled not guilty and proceeded to a bench trial. Prior to trial, the state clarified that the harassment started on November 9, 2016 and continued until November 20, 2016. Ham acknowledged that he was on notice that the alleged harassment continued over that period of time, and that the state intended to prove that Ham continued to contact Rice after being asked to stop.

         {¶4} Rice was the sole witness for the state. Rice testified that she had had a relationship with Clarence Ham, whom she initially knew as Mike Cottman. A week before the harassment started, Ham was driving her car and got into a car accident. Eventually, he was cited for the accident and for fleeing the scene of the accident. Rice learned his real name during the investigation into the car accident. When Ham learned of the charges he was facing, he repeatedly contacted Rice.

         {¶5} Rice testified that she told Ham to stop calling her after receiving multiple calls on November 9, 2016. Ham continued to contact her until November 19, 2016. She stated that he called her from numerous different numbers, texted her, and contacted her through Facebook messenger and her Facebook page. Rice testified that, during one call, Ham threatened to kill her and her family to avoid going to jail.

         {¶6} Rice had documented the text messages, Facebook posts, and messages sent through Facebook messenger by taking screen shots with her cell phone. One of the messages, which Ham shared with her family members, claimed she had AIDS, and they would die together. The other message he shared included a photograph of his penis. In another message, he threatened to shoot up a child's birthday party.

         {¶7} Ham repeatedly attempted to video call her through Facebook messenger. Rice testified that she blocked his telephone number and blocked him on Facebook, but he continued to contact her using call block and fake numbers. She knew Ham was contacting her through these numbers based on the content of the messages. When he continued to ignore her requests to stop contacting her, she called the police. The communications stopped when Ham was arrested and incarcerated.

         {¶8} After Rice testified, the state rested, and Ham moved for an acquittal. The trial court denied the motion, and the defense rested and renewed its motion for an acquittal, which was denied.

         {¶9} The state moved to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence. Specifically, the state requested that the telecommunications harassment charge be amended to reflect a violation of R.C. 2917.21(A)(5), which prohibits a person from continuing to make telecommunications after the recipient has told the caller to stop, instead of the (B) section, which prohibits a person from making a telecommunication with purpose to abuse, threaten, or harass another person. Ham objected, arguing that ...


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.