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. Shoe

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Shelby

July 30, 2018

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT L. SHOE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

          Appeal from Sidney Municipal Court Trial Court No. 17CRB00561

          Jim R. Gudgel for Appellant.

          Jeffrey L. Amick for Appellee.

          OPINION

          PRESTON, J.

         {¶1} 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 affirm.

         {¶2} 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).

         {¶3} 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).

         {¶4} 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.

         {¶5} 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.

         {¶6} "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.

         {¶7} 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 ...

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.