[Cite as State v. Covington, 2025-Ohio-1720.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240099 TRIAL NO. 23/CRB/5512 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
RONALD COVINGTON, : JUDGMENT ENTRY
Defendant-Appellant. :
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs are taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that 1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and 2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 5/14/2025 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as State v. Covington, 2025-Ohio-1720.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240099 TRIAL NO. 23/CRB/5512 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
RONALD COVINGTON, : OPINION
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 14, 2025
Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, and William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Joshua A. Thompson, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant. MOORE, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ronald Covington appeals the judgment of the
Hamilton County Municipal Court, after he was convicted, following a jury trial, of
violating the terms of a civil protection order. In five assignments of error, Covington
challenges the fairness of his trial, the court’s evidentiary rulings, and the weight of
the evidence underlying his conviction. After considering Covington’s arguments and
reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} On January 12, 2023, the Hamilton County Municipal Court issued an
ex parte civil stalking protection order against Covington, which prohibited him from
contacting or visiting the complaining witness (“T.S.”). On April 6, 2023, T.S. filed a
complaint against Covington, alleging Covington contacted her through multiple
anonymous phone numbers and visited her home in violation of R.C. 2919.27.
{¶3} Prior to trial, Covington filed a motion in limine to prevent the State
from introducing anonymous text messages sent prior to the incident date referenced
in the complaint. Covington insisted that the additional messages were both
inadmissible character evidence and irrelevant as to whether he violated the
protection order “on or about” April 6. The court denied Covington’s motion and
permitted the State to introduce texts sent before the incident referenced in the
complaint for the purpose of identifying Covington as the sender of the anonymous
texts on April 6.
{¶4} Between the completion of jury selection and commencement of
opening arguments, Covington alerted the court that the State had failed to disclose
material evidence. Covington alleged that the State had received sign-in sheets and
pay stubs from his employer for the week of April 6, the time of the incident in the OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
complaint, and that the State’s failure to share this information prevented his counsel
from presenting an adequate defense. The State insisted that it did not intend to use
the documents, and that the information was not exculpatory. After chastising the
State for not producing these documents ahead of trial, the court denied Covington’s
motion for a mistrial.
{¶5} At trial, the State called three witnesses: T.S. and two police officers who
helped file the complaint and serve Covington with the protection order. Covington’s
sole witness was one of his coworkers.
{¶6} T.S. testified about her relationship with Covington. She recalled that
when she attempted to end the relationship, Covington threatened to kill himself. She
also explained that she had only felt safe to leave Covington after he had become bed-
ridden from an illness. T.S. testified that after the relationship ended Covington would
constantly text, call, or message her social-media accounts. In January 2023, T.S. was
granted a protection order, which prohibited Covington from contacting or visiting
her.
{¶7} T.S. testified that despite the protection order she believed Covington
continued to contact her. The State introduced printed screenshots of text messages
sent to T.S. as well as a call log. The screenshot of the call log showed that a number
registered to Covington’s mother called T.S. more than ten times in one day. The 56
screenshots documented messages from 42 unknown numbers. T.S. testified that the
messages mentioned nicknames Covington had for her as well as facts about her
personal life, including information about her family, past intimate partners, and job.
T.S. also received seven sexually-explicit photographs of herself, that she believed
Covington had taken when they were dating.
{¶8} One of the messages stated “f*** that order, if I was a psycho an order
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
wouldn’t stop [me] anyway.” T.S. believed that Covington was the sender, because the
texts referenced facts about her personal life, expressed knowledge of the protective
order, and included intimate photos.
{¶9} As the State was presenting its case-in-chief, Covington moved for a
mistrial. At an in-chambers conference, Covington took issue with the State providing
“courtesy copies” of three text message exhibits. The difference between the copies
provided in discovery and the “courtesy copies” were that the courtesy copies now
contained timestamps from April 5 and 6 respectively. Covington insisted that this
late disclosure interfered with his ability to adequately prepare an effective defense.
The court denied Covington’s request for a mistrial but granted Covington a 24-hour
continuance.
{¶10} When the proceedings resumed, T.S. recalled the events that prompted
her complaint. T.S. explained that on April 5 at 9:10 a.m., she received texts criticizing
her for leaving someone while they were sick. T.S. next recalled receiving two texts on
April 6. The first was received at 7:54 a.m. and stated that the sender had driven by
her home, did not see her car, and demanded to know her new address. The second
came in at 9:40 a.m. from a different unknown phone number and reiterated that the
sender had driven by T.S.’s home and had not seen her car. The sender then repeatedly
stated that they were “burning with so much anger” and asked God to “please forgive
me for what im (sic) about to do.” T.S. recalled that she then filed the complaint
seeking a protection order.
{¶11} Covington’s sole witness, a coworker, testified that Covington was at
work on the date of the complaint. The coworker recalled that from April 3 to April 7,
she and Covington were required to complete new-hire orientation. Covington
introduced copies of the employer’s sign-in sheets, which showed that Covington
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
signed into work on April 5 at 10:15 a.m. and on April 6 at 8:15 a.m. The coworker
explained that employees were prohibited from using their phones at work and they
could not use the employer’s WiFi. But, the coworker added that employees could
keep their phones with them and could access the internet using their own cellular
data services.
{¶12} At the end of trial, the jury found Covington guilty of violating the
protection order, and the court sentenced him to serve 180 days in jail, with a time-
served credit of 29 days.
II. Analysis
{¶13} On appeal, Covington raises five assignments of error. Covington
argues that (1) the State’s late disclosure of material evidence denied him the
opportunity to have a fair trial, (2) and (3) the trial court erroneously admitted
inadmissible and irrelevant evidence, (4) the cumulative effect of the errors at trial
denied Covington the right to a fair trial, and (5) the court’s judgment was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. We consider these arguments in turn.
A. Fair Trial
{¶14} In his first assignment of error, Covington asserts that the State’s failure
to provide the timestamped text messages and documents from Covington’s employer
denied him the opportunity to have a fair trial.
{¶15} Central to a defendant’s right to due process is the duty of the
prosecution to provide the accused with evidence material to his or her guilt or
punishment. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Failure to disclose
exculpatory evidence infringes upon a defendant’s right to a fair trial under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State
v. Long, 2023-Ohio-132, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.). We review the trial court’s decision on a
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
motion for a new trial following an alleged Brady violation de novo. Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶16} To establish a violation of Brady, a defendant must demonstrate (1) the
evidence was favorable to the defendant, (2) the state suppressed the evidence, and
(3) the defendant was prejudiced as a result. State v. Brown, 2024-Ohio-749, ¶ 30,
citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-282 (1999). Under the Brady analysis,
evidence is prejudicial if there is a reasonable probability that the result of the
proceeding would have been different had the evidence been disclosed. Id. at ¶ 30.
{¶17} The Ohio Supreme Court has determined that a Brady violation does
not automatically occur when evidence is first disclosed at trial. Id. at ¶ 31, citing State
v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83, 100 (2001). Instead, the relevant question is whether the
Brady material was disclosed to the defendant in time for its effective use at trial.
Iacona at 100.
{¶18} Here, the late disclosure of the evidence at issue did not constitute a
Brady violation. First, the State’s delay in providing the timestamped text messages
did not prejudice Covington. Covington had all texts the State planned to use at trial
for five months before trial. And, after the updated copies were disclosed, Covington
still had seven days to incorporate the texts into his trial strategy before he started his
case in defense. Therefore, the State’s delay in providing the timestamped texts was
not a Brady violation.
{¶19} Similarly, the State’s dilatory disclosure of documents related to
Covington’s employment after jury selection also was not a Brady violation. The State
disclosed copies of sign-in sheets and pay stubs to Covington six days before the start
of Covington’s case in defense. So, Covington could have used the documents at trial.
Covington’s brief suggests that an earlier disclosure would have allowed his counsel to
conclusively determine whether employees could have accessed the internet at work.
7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
But nothing the State did kept Covington’s trial counsel from completing this
investigation, as Covington, after all, knew where he worked. Because the State’s late
production of the employment documents did not hinder Covington’s ability to put on
an effective defense, Covington was not prejudiced.
{¶20} Accordingly, Covington’s first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Prior Bad Acts
{¶21} In his second assignment of error, Covington asserts that the trial court
erred when it allowed the State to introduce text messages beyond the incident date
referenced in the complaint. Covington insists that these additional texts constitute
impermissible “other acts” evidence in violation of Evid.R. 404(B). Covington also
takes issue with the State’s failure to give timely notice of its intention to use Evid.R.
404(B) evidence.
{¶22} We conduct a mixed review of the trial court’s admission of other-acts
evidence. State v. Worley, 2021-Ohio-2207, ¶ 117. Evid.R. 404(B)(1) prohibits the use
of other-acts evidence to demonstrate that the accused had a propensity or proclivity
to engage in the crime in question. State v. Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214, 219 (2020).
However, Evid.R. 404(B)(2) provides that other-acts evidence may be used for “other
purposes,” such as to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” While the party
attempting to use the other-acts evidence is expected to provide the nonmoving party
with notice of its intention to use Evid.R. 404(B) evidence, a court may excuse a lack
of notice for good cause. Evid.R. 404(B)(3)(c). The admissibility of other-acts
evidence is a question of law appellate courts review de novo. Worley at ¶ 117.
However, we review the trial court’s admissibility assessment, which weighs the
probative value of evidence against the risk of undue prejudice in accordance with
8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Evid.R. 403(A), for an abuse of discretion. Id.
{¶23} When challenging the admissibility of other-acts evidence, courts
engage in a three-step analysis:
‘The first step is to consider whether the other acts evidence is relevant
to making any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence. Evid.R. 401. The next step is to consider whether evidence
of the other crimes, wrongs, or acts is presented to prove the character
of the accused in order to show activity in conformity therewith or
whether the other acts evidence is presented for a legitimate purpose,
such as those stated in Evid.R. 404(B). The third step is to consider
whether the probative value of the other acts evidence is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Evid.R. 403.’
State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 116, quoting State v. Williams, 2012-Ohio-5695, ¶
19-20.
{¶24} Here, the texts were admissible other-acts evidence. The texts were
relevant to establishing that Covington contacted T.S. on or about the incident date in
the complaint. Because T.S. received the texts from an unknown number, the
inclusion of additional messages was introduced for the permitted purpose of
identifying Covington as the source. While the trial court’s decision to introduce a
voluminous record of texts may have posed a risk of prejudice, the probative value of
the additional texts was not substantially outweighed by the threat of prejudice. See
State v. Barnett, 2018-Ohio-4133, ¶ 50 (2d Dist.) (holding that the exclusion of
sexually-explicit texts was appropriate where the content of the messages was
immaterial to the proffering party’s case.).
9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶25} Further, the State’s failure to give notice of its intent to use other-acts
evidence was appropriately excused by the trial court. As stated by the Staff Notes to
the 2012 Amendment to Evid.R. 404(B), the purpose of the notice requirement is to
allow parties the opportunity to adequately prepare. See City of Brecksville v.
Sadaghiani, 2021-Ohio-2443, ¶ 77 (8th Dist.) (finding the prosecution’s failure to give
formal notice of its intent to use Evid.R. 404(B) evidence was ameliorated when it
shared police reports that would be used to establish identity). Here, the trial court
determined that the State shared the text messages five months in advance of trial,
which gave Covington sufficient notice so he could adequately prepare.
{¶26} Therefore, the trial court did not err when it admitted text messages for
the purpose of identifying Covington, nor did the court commit reversible error when
it admitted the State’s Evid.R. 404(B) evidence and excused the need for formal notice
of the intent to use such evidence.
{¶27} Accordingly, Covington’s second assignment of error is overruled.
C. Irrelevant Evidence
{¶28} In his third assignment of error, Covington asserts that the court erred
when it admitted the additional text messages, as they were not relevant to
determining whether Covington violated the protection order “on or about April 6,
2023.”
{¶29} We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.
Bender v. Durrani, 2024-Ohio-1258, ¶ 53 (1st Dist.). For evidence to be
admissible, it must be relevant, and its probative value must not be substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Id. at ¶ 57.
{¶30} A complaint may reference an approximate date for an offense,
because generally the precise date is not a dispositive element of an offense. State
10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 172 (1985). Unless the exact date and time are
material to the elements of a crime, the failure to prove a temporal component of
a crime is generally inconsequential. State v. Leonard, 2024-Ohio-2817, ¶ 12 (1st
Dist.).
{¶31} As with our analysis of Covington’s second assignment of error, we
hold that the trial court did not err in admitting the text messages. Covington’s
argument that the texts from January, February, and March of 2023 are too far
removed to classify as “on or about April 6” misinterprets the purpose of the
additional text messages. As the trial court stated when it denied Covington’s
motion in limine, the texts were used for the sole purpose of identifying that “on or
about” the occurrence date in the complaint, Covington violated the protection
order. The trial court did not broadly interpret “on or about” to mean that a text
from January could be read to violate the protection order in April.
{¶32} Additionally, Covington’s argument that the multiple texts were
substantially more prejudicial than probative is not persuasive. While the texts
may have posed a risk of prejudice, it is not apparent from the record before this
court that this risk outweighed the probative value the texts provided in identifying
Covington as the sender.
{¶33} Accordingly, Covington’s third assignment of error is overruled.
D. Cumulative Error
{¶34} In his fourth assignment of error, Covington asserts that his prior three
assignments of error had the cumulative effect of denying him a fair trial.
{¶35} A conviction shall be reversed where the cumulative effect of errors has
the effect of depriving the defendant of a fair trial, even if no one individual error would
11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
necessitate reversal. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, at ¶ 288. However, the doctrine of
cumulative error is inapplicable where the errors are harmless or nonexistent. Garry
v. Borger, 2023-Ohio-905, ¶ 33 (1st Dist.).
{¶36} After reviewing the record and finding no error in the trial court’s
actions complained of in Covington’s assignments of error, we cannot say that
Covington was denied a fair trial.
{¶37} Accordingly, Covington’s fourth assignment of error is overruled.
E. Manifest Weight
{¶38} In his fifth and final assignment of error, Covington asserts that his
conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶39} When reviewing whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of
the evidence, we assess the whole record, weigh all evidence and reasonable
inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses and conclude whether the trier of
fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. State v.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). While an appellate court considers
credibility for a manifest-weight analysis, credibility determinations are initially made
by the trier of fact, given their ability to view the witnesses and “their demeanor,
gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility
of the proffered testimony.” State v. Brown, 2024-Ohio-2148, ¶ 17 (1st Dist.).
Reversing a conviction on manifest-weight grounds is an extraordinary action
reserved only for “the most ‘exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily
against the conviction.’” Id. at ¶ 16, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st
Dist. 1983), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶40} Here, Covington insists that his alibi witness was more credible than
T.S. However, nothing in the record demonstrates that T.S. was not credible. The jury
12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
was in the best position to make credibility determinations, and it deemed T.S. more
credible. Based on the record before this court, we cannot conclude that Covington’s
{¶41} Accordingly, Covington’s fifth assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶42} In overruling each of Covington’s five assignment of error, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
ZAYAS, P.J., and BOCK, J., concur.