Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Madison
APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT Case No.
Stephen J. Pronai, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney,
Kirsten Gross, for plaintiff-appellee.
Shannon M. Treynor, for defendant-appellant.
1} Defendant-appellant, Jeremy Marshall, appeals
from his domestic violence conviction in the Madison County
Municipal Court. For the reasons discussed below, this court
affirms Marshall's conviction.
2} On April 29, 2016, the Madison County Sheriffs
Office filed a complaint charging Marshall with one count of
domestic violence, a violation of R.C. 2919.25(C), a
fourth-degree misdemeanor. The complaint arose after Marshall
called 9-1-1 and alleged that his mother kicked him during a
fight. A responding deputy determined that Marshall was the
primary aggressor and arrested him.
3} The matter proceeded to a bench trial in October
2016. The state introduced testimony from Kathleen Marshall
(Marshall's mother), Beth Ann Marshall (Marshall's
sister), and the responding deputy. The court found Marshall
guilty. Marshall appeals, raising four assignments of error.
For ease of analysis, we address certain assignments of error
collectively and out of order.
4} Assignment of Error No. 3:
5} THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION, BY FAILING TO MEET ALL THE
ELEMENTS OF THE OFFNESE BY PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
6} Assignment of Error No. 4:
7} THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
8} In his third and fourth assignments of error
Marshall challenges the sufficiency and the weight of the
evidence supporting his conviction. Marshall argues that the
state failed to submit sufficient evidence that he committed
a threatening act towards Kathleen or that Kathleen believed
that Marshall would cause her physical harm. Marshall
otherwise argues that his conviction was not supported by the
weight of the evidence because the court found that Kathleen
was not afraid of Marshall.
9} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
underlying a criminal conviction, an appellate court examines
the evidence to determine whether such evidence, if believed,
would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bradbury, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-111, 2016-Ohio-5091, ¶ 16.
The "relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt."
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph
two of the syllabus.
10} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge, on
the other hand, examines the "inclination of the greater
amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support
one side of the issue rather than the other." State
v Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177,
2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14. To determine whether a conviction
is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing
court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and
all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the
witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the 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.
Id. An appellate court will overturn a conviction
due to the manifest weight of the evidence only in
extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at
trial weighs heavily in favor of acquittal. Id. at