State v. Bertuzzi, 9-07-13 (11-26-2007)

2007 Ohio 6236
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 26, 2007
DocketNo. 9-07-13.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2007 Ohio 6236 (State v. Bertuzzi, 9-07-13 (11-26-2007)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Bertuzzi, 9-07-13 (11-26-2007), 2007 Ohio 6236 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

OPINION *Page 2
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Russell Bertuzzi (hereinafter "Bertuzzi"), appeals the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶ 2} On November 29, 2006, Bertuzzi was indicted on one count of felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a second degree felony; and one count of aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C.2911.01(A)(3), a first degree felony. The indictment stemmed from an incident in which Troy Queen, while an inmate at the Multi-County Correctional Center, was assaulted. As a result of the assault, Queen's spleen was injured and was removed by surgery.

{¶ 3} A jury trial was held on April 3 and 4, 2007. The jury found Bertuzzi not guilty of aggravated robbery, but guilty of felonious assault. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Bertuzzi to six years imprisonment on the felonious assault count. The trial court further ordered the sentence be served consecutively to the twelve month sentence imposed in Marion County Common Pleas Court Case No. 06-CR-318.

{¶ 4} It is from this judgment that Bertuzzi appeals and asserts two assignments of error for our review. *Page 3

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR FELONIOUS ASSAULT IS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

{¶ 5} In his first assignment of error, Bertuzzi argues that the conclusion that he knowingly caused serious physical harm to Queen is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Bertuzzi argues: the prosecution argued that Bertuzzi and Weaver beat up Queen in order to take his commissary items; McFarland testified that neither Bertuzzi nor Weaver took any of Queen's commissary items; and Partlow never saw either Bertuzzi or Weaver take any commissary items. Bertuzzi further argues that Queen's testimony was not believable because: Queen claimed he was in his cell reading the bible; Queen's commissary items were not stolen but instead were lost by his gambling, and the jury acquitted Bertuzzi on the count of aggravated robbery.

{¶ 6} In addition, Bertuzzi argues: that Inmate Thomas' opportunity to observe the assault was limited; McFarland and Partlow testified that they did not see Thomas walk by the cell; the window was covered by a towel; and Thomas did not testify that Bertuzzi knowingly caused serious physical harm to Queen. Furthermore, Weaver testified that he hurt Queen. Finally, Bertuzzi argues that while Queen testified that Weaver and Bertuzzi were punching Queen in the *Page 4 midsection, all the other witnesses agreed that Bertuzzi did not do anything to harm Queen.

{¶ 7} When determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence a reviewing court must examine the entire record, "`[weigh] the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and [determine] whether in resolving 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.'" State v. Thompkins (1997),78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin (1983),20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717.

{¶ 8} Credibility determinations are primarily a matter for the trier of fact since the trier of fact is in a better position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and weigh their credibility. State v.DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231, 227 N.E.2d 212. "A conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence merely because there is conflicting evidence before the trier of fact." State v. Haydon (Dec. 22, 1999), 9th Dist. No. 19094, at *7, citing State v. Gilliam (Aug. 12, 1998), Lorain App. No. 97CA006757, at *4.

{¶ 9} Bertuzzi was convicted of felonious assault pursuant to R.C.2903.11, which provides, in pertinent part: "(A) No person shall knowingly do either of the following: (1) Cause serious physical harm to another * * *." *Page 5

{¶ 10} Troy Queen, the victim in this case, testified that he was at the Multi-County Corrections Center in November. (T. Vol. 1, 74). Queen testified that on November 9, Bertuzzi and Weaver approached Queen and asked him for his commissary items, but Queen did not give them the commissary items. (Id. at 84-86). According to Queen, Weaver and Bertuzzi beat him up then took the commissary items. (Id.). Queen testified:

Q. How did they beat you up?

A. I was in my cell and they just — I mean, I thought it was a joke at first when they first came in, and they were just messing with me over it until it got serious, and they — I knew that they were hitting me hard, and then they took my commissary after.

Q. Where did they hit you?

A. Hit me in my stomach, my abdomen, and my back

* * *

Q. * * * Who was hitting you in those places?
A. Russell Bertuzzi and Andrew Weaver.
Q. And is there any doubt that both of them were hitting you?
A. No, there's no doubt.
Q. And how many times did Defendant Bertuzzi or Mr. Weaver hit you?
A. I can't count how many times, I mean, several times.
Q. How hard did the Defendant Russell Bertuzzi or Inmate Weaver hit you?
A. Hard enough to hurt me.
Q. And you could feel pain?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you get away?

A. No. No, I couldn't. I mean, they had me pinned in my cell. The cells ain't very big, and when there's two of them, I mean, I was pinned, I couldn't get to the door.

(Id. at 87-88). *Page 6

{¶ 11} Further, Queen testified that he fell to the floor and passed out. (Id. at 89).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Bertuzzi
885 N.E.2d 954 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)
State v. Ward, 13-07-21 (1-14-2008)
2008 Ohio 84 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2007 Ohio 6236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bertuzzi-9-07-13-11-26-2007-ohioctapp-2007.