Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case No. CR-18-627283-A
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, and
Michael Lisk and Erin Stone, Assistant County Prosecutors,
Patrick S. Lavelle, for appellant.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
LASTER MAYS, J.
1} Appellant-defendant John Handyside, III
("Handyside") appeals his conviction and asks this
court to reverse the judgment of the trial court. We affirm
the trial court's decision.
2} After a bench trial, Handyside was convicted of abduction,
a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2); and
assault, a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C.
2903.13(A). Handyside was sentenced to a total of 18 months
Facts and Procedural History
3} On March 26, 2018, Sarah Vidmar ("Vidmar") went
for a run. As she was running, she noticed Handyside crossing
the street towards her. Once Vidmar realized that Handyside
was running towards her, she tried to get out of his way and
tripped over an obstruction. When she fell, Handyside jumped
on top of her and held her down. Vidmar repeatedly told
Handyside to stop, but he continued to hold her down,
grabbing, pushing, and hitting her in the face. Vidmar broke
free, and attempted to run, but Handyside grabbed her again
and pushed her back down. Vidmar began yelling for help.
Justin Frankmann ("Frankmann"), who was out walking
his dog, heard Vidmar yelling for help, and ran to assist.
Frankmann pushed Handyside off of Vidmar. Without saying a
word, Handyside walked away.
4} Galen Fuller ("Fuller") and Veronica Rose
("Rose") witnessed the attack from their car. Both
saw Handyside dart across the street and punch Vidmar in the
face. Fuller, who was driving the car, turned around and
drove to the location of the attack. He jumped out of the
vehicle and confronted Handyside along with Frankmann. Rose
called 911, and Fuller followed Handyside in his vehicle
while Rose was on the phone with 911, giving updates on
5} Two police officers responded to the emergency call and
interviewed Vidmar. She told them that while on her daily run
Handyside attacked her. The officers were then notified of
Handyside's location and detained him upon their arrival.
Handyside told the officers that he saw a woman fall and
tried to help her. The officers brought Handyside back to the
scene of the incident, where Vidmar was waiting. Vidmar and
the other witnesses identified Handyside as the man who
6} Handyside was charged with kidnapping, with an attached
sexual motivation specification, abduction, gross sexual
imposition, and assault. Handyside, pursuant to Crim.R. 29,
asked the trial court "to direct verdicts of
acquittal" as to the sexual motivation specification
contained in Count 1, kidnapping, as well as Count 3, the
gross sexual imposition; the court granted the motion as to
both specifications. (Tr. 95-96.) The trial court found
Handyside not guilty of kidnapping, but guilty of abduction
and assault. The trial court sentenced Handyside to 18 months
imprisonment, and Handyside filed this appeal of his
conviction of the abduction charge only. He assigns two
errors for our review:
I. The [trier of fact's] determination in lower court was
against the manifest weight of evidence; and
II. There was not sufficient evidence presented to the trier
of fact in the lower court proceeding to convict the
appellant of Count 2 of the indictment.
Sufficiency of the Evidence