FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR-2018-02-0472
J. WILLIAMS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
A. TEODOSIO, JUDGE
Defendant-Appellant, Chad Henning, appeals from the judgment
of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court
L.R. is the mother of Mr. Henning's two children. Early
one evening, she called 911 because Mr. Henning had come to
her home and had "choked [her] out." The officer
who responded spoke with L.R. and learned that Mr. Henning
had strangled her while the two were having an argument. The
officer took pictures of her injuries and had her complete a
written statement. L.R. was hesitant to press charges,
however, as Mr. Henning had two previous domestic violence
convictions, she loved him, and she did not want him to go to
jail. The officer ultimately told L.R. that he would sign the
charge against Mr. Henning once he filed his report.
Within two hours of the officer's departure, L.R.
attempted to retract her statement. She called 911 and told
the operator that she had falsely accused Mr. Henning because
she was angry with him. Though she wished to have any
potential charges withdrawn, the case nonetheless proceeded.
A grand jury indicted Mr. Henning on one count of domestic
violence, a third-degree felony due to his two prior domestic
At Mr. Henning's trial, the State presented the testimony
of two officers, as well as sound recordings of L.R.'s
911 calls and several jail calls. Meanwhile, L.R. took the
stand for the defense and declared Mr. Henning innocent.
Despite her testimony, the jury found Mr. Henning guilty of
domestic violence. It further found that he had been
convicted of domestic violence on two prior occasions. The
court sentenced him to 18 months in prison.
Mr. Henning now appeals from his conviction and raises three
assignments of error for our review. For ease of analysis, we
rearrange the assignments of error.
OF ERROR THREE
CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
In his third assignment of error, Mr. Henning argues that his
conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We
do not agree.