from Sidney Municipal Court Trial Court No. 17CRB00561
Gudgel for Appellant.
Jeffrey L. Amick for Appellee.
Defendant-appellant, Robert Shoe ("Shoe"), appeals
the November 14, 2017 judgment entry of sentence of the
Sidney Municipal Court. For the reasons that follow, we
This case stems from a July 17, 2017 investigation by Officer
Kevin Calvert ("Officer Calvert") of the Sidney
Police Department of a report concerning an injured and
distressed dog. After locating the dog in Shoe's
backyard, Officer Calvert questioned Shoe. Eventually, Shoe
became confrontational and uncooperative with Officer
Calvert, cursed at Officer Calvert, and refused to provide
Officer Calvert with his identification. On July 18, 2017,
two complaints were filed against Shoe charging him with one
count each of: obstructing official business in violation of
R.C. 2921.31(A), a second-degree misdemeanor, and disorderly
conduct in violation of R.C. 2917.11(A)(2), a fourth-degree
misdemeanor. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2). On July 24, 2017, Shoe
appeared for arraignment and entered pleas of not guilty to
both counts. (See Doc. No. 4).
A bench trial was held on September 15, 2017. (Sept. 15, 2017
Tr. at 1-3). The trial court found Shoe guilty of obstructing
official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A) and not
guilty of the disorderly-conduct charge. (Doc. No. 18);
(See Doc. No. 22). On November 14, 2017, the trial
court sentenced Shoe to 30 days in jail and two-years'
probation and ordered him to pay a $150 fine. (Doc. No. 22).
On November 17, 2017, Shoe filed a notice of appeal. (Doc.
No. 26). He raises one assignment of error.
Assignment of Error
The Court's verdict finding the Defendant guilty
of Obstructing Official Business is not supported by the
sufficiency of the evidence.
In his assignment of error, Shoe argues that his
obstructing-official-business conviction is not supported by
sufficient evidence. Specifically, Shoe argues that the State
did not produce sufficient evidence to prove (1) that he
acted with the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay a
public official in the performance of the public
official's duty or (2) that a public official was
hampered or impeded in the performance of their duties.
"An appellate court's function when reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction
is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine
whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the
average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259
(1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by
state constitutional amendment on other grounds, State v.
Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997). Accordingly, "[t]he
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." Id.
R.C. 2921.31(A) provides:
No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to
prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public
official of any authorized act within the public
official's official capacity, shall do any act that
hampers or impedes a public official ...