State v. Blackford

2023 Ohio 3440

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 25, 2023
• Docket: 2022 CA 00110
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Blackford, 2023-Ohio-3440.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- : : Case No. 2022 CA 00110 : CHRISTIAN BLACKFORD : : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Canton Municipal Court, Case No. 2022 CRB 02665

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 25, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:

JASON REESE GEORGE URBAN KATIE M. ERCHICK GILBERT 116 Cleveland Ave, NW KATE M. LUKOSAVICH Suite 808 CANTON CITY LAW DIRECTOR Canton, OH 44702 218 Cleveland Ave. SW Canton, OH 44702 Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00110 2

Delaney, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Christian Blackford, appeals the August 4, 2022 order of the

Canton Municipal Court finding him guilty of one count of public indecency, a fourth

degree misdemeanor.

FACTS

{¶2} Appellant attended an appointment at Stark County TASC, a community

services agency. He met with the victim, M.G., who was an intern in training at the TASC

program. At the conclusion of the meeting, M.G. handed Appellant her business card.

M.G. testified Appellant caressed her hand when she gave him the business card. She

testified the caressing of her hand made her feel uncomfortable. When she pulled her

hand away, Appellant lifted his shorts up and exposed his scrotum.

{¶3} Appellant also testified. He denied exposing himself. He testified he has a

long-standing medical condition which requires him to wear a jock strap thereby making

it impossible to expose himself. Appellant testified M.G. was lying but could not identify

why she would lie about Appellant’s actions. Appellant testified M.G. seemed “disturbed”

after handing Appellant her business card. Another TASC employee, Dwayne Green,

also testified. He stated M.G. came to him and asked him to escort Appellant out of her

office because Appellant had exposed himself to her. Green described M.G.’s demeanor

as “panicked” when she was seeking his help.

{¶4} Following closing arguments, the jury deliberated and returned a verdict of

guilty. Appellant was sentenced to 30 days in jail. Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00110 3

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶5} Appellant raises one Assignment of Error:

I. APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.

ANALYSIS

{¶6} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, the appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror and “in reviewing the entire record,

weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses,

and determines whether in resolving conflicts in evidence the jury ‘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, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678

N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1983).

{¶7} An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence

is to determine 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. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492,

paragraph two of the syllabus (1991).

{¶8} Appellant was convicted of public indecency in violation of R.C. 2907.09

which provides in relevant part:

(A) No person shall recklessly do any of the following, under

circumstances in which the person's conduct is likely to be viewed by and affront others Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00110 4

who are in the person's physical proximity and who are not members of the person's

household:

(1) Expose the person's private parts;

R.C. 2907.09(A)(1).

{¶9} Appellant argues the State did not prove he exposed his private parts

recklessly. He maintains, if he did adjust himself, his medical condition caused him to

adjust his private parts without realizing he was exposing himself. This contention is

contrary to Appellant’s testimony wherein he testified his clothing coupled with the jock

strap would have prevented any of his private parts from being exposed accidentally.

{¶10} He also argues M.G. would have noticed his medical condition, birth mark,

and scar had he exposed himself. M.G. testified she saw his thigh and his scrotum. The

jury chose to believe M.G.’s testimony and reject Appellant’s testimony. We cannot say

the jury clearly lost its way in rejecting Appellant’s version of events. The jury was in the

best position to observe the witnesses and determine their credibility. We find, the

conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶11} Based upon the testimony presented, we have viewed the evidence in a

light most favorable to the prosecution and find it is clear a rational trier of fact could have

found all of the elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The

conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.

{¶12} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled. Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00110 5

CONCLUSION

{¶13} Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of the Canton Municipal Court is

affirmed.

By: Delaney, J.,

Wise, P.J. and

Baldwin, J., concur.