State v. Dodridge

2025 Ohio 2856

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 1, 2025
• Docket: 22CA19
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Dodridge, 2025-Ohio-2856.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAWRENCE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 22CA19 : v. : : DECISION AND RICHARD B. DODRIDGE, : JUDGMENT ENTRY : Defendant-Appellant. : _____________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES:

Karyn Justice, The Law Office of Karyn Justice, LLC, Portsmouth, Ohio, for Appellant.

Brigham M. Anderson, Lawrence County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrea M. Kratzenberg, Assistant Lawrence County Prosecuting Attorney, Jackson, Ohio, for Appellee. _____________________________________________________________

Smith, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant, Richard Dodridge, appeals from the judgment of the

Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of one count of

domestic violence, a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A),

and one count of disrupting public services, a fourth-degree felony in violation of

R.C. 2909.04(A)(1). On appeal, Dodridge raises eight assignments of error

contending that 1) the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to

question the victim as a hostile witness; 2) the trial court abused its discretion Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 2

when it improperly questioned the victim; 3) the trial court abused its discretion

when it admitted portions of the police report into evidence; 4) the trial court erred

when it did not instruct the jury regarding impeachment evidence; 5) defense

counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the jury instructions or request a

limiting instruction; 6) the State violated his right to due process when it failed to

preserve materially exculpatory evidence that had been requested in discovery; 7)

the trial court erred when it denied his motion for acquittal; and 8) the cumulative

effect of these errors deprived him of a fair trial.

{¶2} However, because we find no merit in any of the arguments raised in

support of Dodridge’s eight assignments of error, they are all overruled.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FACTS

{¶3} On May 25, 2022, Dodridge was indicted on one count of domestic

violence, a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), and one

count of disrupting public services, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C.

2909.04(A)(1). The charges stemmed from an incident that occurred at Dodridge’s

residence in Ironton, Ohio on February 28, 2022. Preceding the filing of the

indictment, a criminal complaint was filed by the prosecuting attorney with an

attached criminal affidavit from one of the officers that responded to Dodridge’s

residence on the night of the incident. The affidavit stated that the Ironton Police Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 3

Department and Child Protective Services (hereinafter “CPS”) went to the

residence to conduct a well-being check after being informed that a domestic

violence incident had taken place during the night. Sergeant McKnight, the

averring officer, stated that he arrived, along with Captain Gue, Detective Pauley,

Detective McGraw, and CPS.

{¶4} Sergeant McKnight identified the victim as Megan Eaches, the wife of

Dodridge. The victim informed McKnight that Dodridge had a headache and

became agitated when the baby was crying at approximately 2:00 a.m. The

affidavit stated that the victim informed McKnight that Dodridge grabbed her by

the hair and pushed her to the ground as she was trying to take a bottle into the

baby’s room. The affidavit further stated that when the victim went to get her

phone to call 911, Dodridge took her phone and tried to break it in half. At that

point, the victim went to the car, where Dodridge followed her and threatened to

take the kids. When the victim went back inside, Dodridge pushed the victim to

the floor in the bedroom and proceeded to kick and punch her. The affidavit states

that the victim explained that Dodridge left when she told him she saw police

lights. The affidavit further referenced that a statement was obtained from the

victim and that photographs of the victim’s injuries were taken. Despite the fact

that this affidavit stated that the victim wished to pursue criminal charges, it is

clear that soon after filing the complaint and throughout the jury trial, the victim Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 4

made it clear that she did not want to pursue charges against Dodridge and that the

couple remained together after the incident.

{¶5} Dodridge filed a demand for discovery on March 23, 2022 while the

case was still pending in the Ironton Municipal Court. Video and audio tape

recordings were requested but were not provided when the State responded to

discovery on March 28, 2022. The case was bound over to the grand jury and the

matter proceeded through discovery. A motion to compel evidence, as well an

amended motion to compel, were filed on October 5, 2022. The amended motion

sought “all body worn camera footage and the body worn camera policy from the

Ironton Police Department Officers involved in the investigation of this case.” The

motion requested “all unedited or undestroyed footage.”

{¶6} The motion stated that after Dodridge waived his right to a preliminary

hearing on the felony offense and was indicted by the grand jury, a second demand

for discovery, identical to the demand filed in the municipal court, was filed in the

common pleas court on June 30, 2022. The State filed an answer to that discovery

request on August 2, 2022, but did not produce any body cam footage. A pretrial

hearing was held on August 10, 2022 and the State indicated that it would provide

the requested footage. Another pretrial hearing was held on August 17, 2022,

where the State again indicated that it would provide the requested footage and this

pattern was again repeated at another pretrial hearing held on September 7, 2022. Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 5

The next day, the prosecutor’s office informed defense counsel that there was no

body cam footage because the footage is “purged after 180 days if not marked as

evidence.”

{¶7} A hearing on the amended motion to compel was held on October 18,

2022. Ironton Police Chief Pam Waggoner testified on behalf of the State and

explained that the police department contracts with a third party who retains data

for the department for 180 days, at which time data is purged, unless it is marked

as evidence. She testified that Captain Gue’s body cam was not activated during

the investigation and that Sergeant McKnight’s body cam was only activated for

one minute and forty-nine seconds during the incident. She explained that the

body cams also act as cameras and that they stop recording when photos are being

taken.

{¶8} The trial court questioned Waggoner during the hearing and

established that 1) the indictment was filed on May 25, 2022; 2) a discovery

demand was filed on June 30, 2022; and 3) the State answered discovery on

August 2, 2023, which was prior to the 180-day purge deadline on August 27,

2023. Thus, per Chief Waggoner, if there was actually footage from Sergeant

McKnight’s body cam, it should have been able to be retrieved prior to August 27,

2022. However, Chief Waggoner also testified that there may have been no video

at all, but rather, only the photos that were taken from the camera. She testified Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 6

that the only way to know for sure would be to pull the footage, which was no

longer available.

{¶9} Sergeant McKnight also testified during the hearing. He testified that

he recorded the interaction with the victim when he responded to the scene and that

he did not know why there was only one minute forty-nine seconds of footage. He

testified that he used his body cam to take photos of the victim and to receive

photos that were sent via text message from the victim. He explained that in the

past, including when this incident took place, evidence such as this was handled by

the detectives, not the officers. He further explained that beginning about a month

prior to the hearing the process was changed to require each officer to download

any footage taken to a CD and attach to the police report.

{¶10} The victim also testified at the hearing. She testified that Captain

Gue and a CPS worker told her that her children would be taken away from her if

she didn’t go along with what her step-daughter and her step-daughter’s mother

had reported to the police.1 She testified that she would not have a made a

statement had Gue not threatened her with taking her children, however, she also

testified that what her step-daughter had told the police was accurate, that Gue’s

and CPS’s threats did not coerce any untruthfulness out of her in giving her

1 As will be discussed in more detail below, Dodridge’s daughter (the victim’s step-daughter) was present in the home and witnessed a portion of the incident. She went to school the next morning and informed her guidance counselor of the incident. As a result, her mother was called and then Dodridge’s daughter, along with her mother, reported the matter to police, who then called CPS. Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 7

statement, and that she had told the truth when providing her statement to the

police. She testified that she did not remember any interaction with Sergeant

McKnight during the incident, however, she was able to identify several of the

photos that were taken. Specifically, she identified a photo of her own hand that

was taken by her, as well as photos of her from behind that her step-daughter took,

which included a photo depicting a bruise on her scapula.

{¶11} The photos were admitted over the objection of the defense, with the

court confirming with the victim that all of the photos did indeed depict her body

on February 28, 2022, and her agreement that the photos were an accurate

description of how she looked after the incident. The trial court ultimately denied

the motion to compel because there was no evidence that could be provided at that

time, as the footage requested no longer existed.

{¶12} The matter then proceeded to a jury trial on November 9, 2022. The

State called two witnesses: the victim and Dodridge’s daughter. The victim

reluctantly testified, stating that she was subpoenaed to be there and did not want

to testify. She testified that an incident occurred on February 28, 2022 when the

couple’s baby was crying. She explained that Dodridge came up behind her,

grabbed her to make her look at him, and that when she pulled away from him, her

hair got caught and she fell down. She testified that her ear was also injured during

this exchange. She testified that when she tried to go to the car, Dodridge grabbed Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 8

her keys and phone and they “wrestled” over them, resulting in a scratch to her

thumb. She further testified that when she went back to the bedroom where their

child was in bed asleep, Dodridge grabbed her again, threw her down, kicked her

and hit her. She testified that it was at that point that her step-daughter came

upstairs. She testified that she wanted to call the police just so that Dodridge

would leave, but that she couldn’t because he had her cell phone. The victim

identified several photos, including a photo of her injured finger that was taken by

her, a photo of a bruise on her back that was taken by her step-daughter (which she

claimed for the first time might have occurred as a result of her car hitting her

some days prior), and two photos depicting what appeared to be a rug burn to her

forehead and a mark on the side of her face, also taken by her step-daughter. She

also identified a photo showing a scratch behind her ear that was taken by step-

daughter, and a photo showing a large amount of hair that she stated came out

when she took her hair down after the incident. She explained that her step-

daughter took the photos a few hours after the incident so she could see them, and

that the photos accurately depicted what she looked like at that time.

{¶13} However, on cross examination, the victim testified that she didn’t

feel she needed to call 911 and made no effort to call 911, and that there was

another phone in the house she could have used. She also testified that Dodridge

did not rip her hair out and that she didn’t believe that Dodridge was intentionally Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 9

trying to injure her. She testified inconsistently regarding some of the photos she

had been presented with on direct examination, claiming that she didn’t know if

some of the injuries actually occurred that night, or whether they may have

occurred on a different date, specifically with respect to bruising on her arm, her

scapula, and a mark on her head.

{¶14} On re-direct examination, the State tried to clarify her testimony

regarding the photo of the hair in the sink, to which the victim responded that it

just fell out. The victim then agreed that it was not a normal amount of hair to lose

and that it had to be from the incident. The victim then testified that she wasn’t

sure whether the photo depicting what appeared to be a rug burn on her forehead

actually occurred the night of the incident or not. When the State asked her why

she had taken photos of her injuries if she wasn’t sure they had actually occurred

that night, the defense objected, arguing that the State was trying to impeach its

own witness. At that point, the State asked the court to declare the victim to be a

hostile witness. The court, noting that the victim had changed her testimony from

direct examination to cross examination, declared her to be a hostile witness.

{¶15} This declaration permitted the State to then ask the victim a series of

leading questions and also resulted in the trial court directly interrogating the

victim. The details of this questioning of the victim will be fully discussed below

as part of our analysis under Dodridge’s first, second, and third assignments of Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 10

error. However, by the time the questioning of the victim was concluded, the

victim confirmed that Dodridge took her phone and tried to break it during the

incident, that she had wanted to call 911 to get him to leave, but that she couldn’t

because he had her phone.

{¶16} Dodridge’s teenage daughter also testified on behalf of the State. She

testified that she woke up and heard Dodridge and her step-mother fighting at

about 2:30 a.m. and then she went back to sleep. She testified that she awoke

again at 3:30 a.m. and went upstairs to find the victim on the floor in her bedroom

while her dad was kicking and punching her. She testified that she grabbed the

couple’s two little children and took them to the living room while the fight

continued. She testified that the victim came out of the bedroom and yelled for her

to call 911, but that she couldn’t because she had no phone.2 She testified that she

went to call 911, but that her dad told her she couldn’t because he had the victim’s

phone and there was no other phone in the house. She testified that afterwards, the

victim had marks all over her and that she took pictures of the injuries with the

victim’s phone because the victim asked her to do so. She further testified that she

went to the guidance counselor’s office when she got to school the next day.

{¶17} The State rested after introducing these two witnesses. A discussion

was held outside of the presence of the jury during which the parties discussed the

2 The record indicates that Dodridge’s daughter was being disciplined and had her phone taken away from her. Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 11

fact that the victim had been declared a hostile witness and they debated whether

or not the victim had been impeached for purposes of being able to admit her prior

written statement that was attached to the police report. The trial court ultimately

determined that the written statement was admissible and offered that the defense

could call the victim back to the stand to testify in its case-in-chief and would be

permitted to liberally question her; however, the record reveals that the defense

chose not to do this when the time came. Defense counsel thereafter made a

Crim.R. 29(A) motion for judgment of acquittal as to the disrupting public services

charge, which was ultimately denied by the trial court.

{¶18} Dodridge chose to testify on his own behalf. He testified that there

had been a verbal argument on the night in question and that although voices were

raised, the argument did not get physical. He testified that the bruise on the

victim’s scapula occurred when her car door hit it the week prior to the incident.

He testified that the victim’s ear was injured as a result of one of the children

throwing an iPad while in bed. He testified that he did not touch the victim’s

phone that night.

{¶19} He essentially explained that things were tense between him and his

wife due to the fact that he had had an affair with a co-worker while working for a

previous employer, Necco. He also testified that neither his wife nor his daughter

were happy with their living arrangements and that they both wanted the daughter Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 12

to go live with her mother. He claimed that the victim had previously stated that if

he was charged with domestic violence, then his daughter wouldn’t be able to

come back to their house and that she didn’t want her there. When asked by the

State during cross-examination whether he had ever been disciplined while

working at Necco, he answered that he had not. The State then impeached him by

introducing a “Notice of Investigative Restriction” form that was signed by him,

stating that he was required to work in the line of sight of another staff member

when working with a certain individual. The exhibit was admitted into evidence

over the objection of the defendant.

{¶20} The jury found Dodridge guilty of both charges contained in the

indictment. The trial court sentenced him to 180 days in jail on the domestic

violence count and a 30-month term of community control on the disrupting public

services count. Dodridge was also required to complete, as part of his sentence, an

alcohol and drug treatment program, an anger management program and 200 hours

of community service. He was further ordered to wear a SCRAM monitor for six

months after completion of his jail sentence. It is from this judgment that

Dodridge now appeals, setting forth eight assignments of error for our review.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

I. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ALLOWED THE STATE TO QUESTION MRS. DODRIDGE-EACHES AS A HOSTILE WITNESS. Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 13

II. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT IMPROPERLY QUESTIONED MRS. DODRIDGE- EACHES.

III. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ADMITTED PORTIONS OF THE POLICE REPORT INTO EVIDENCE.

IV. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT INSTRUCT THE JURY REGARDING IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE.

V. MR. DODRIDGE’S COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS OR REQUEST A LIMITING INSTRUCTION.

VI. THE STATE VIOLATED MR. DODRIDGE’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WHEN IT FAILED TO PRESERVE MATERIALLY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN REQUESTED IN DISCOVERY.

VII. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED MR. DODRIDGE’S MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL.

VII. THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THESE ERRORS DEPRIVED MR. DODRIDGE OF A FAIR TRIAL.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

{¶21} In his first assignment of error, Dodridge contends that the trial court

abused its discretion when it allowed the State to question the victim as a hostile

witness. Dodridge argues that the victim, from the time of the incident until the

trial, consistently told the State that she did not want the matter prosecuted.

Dodridge further argues that the State failed to allege surprise or affirmative Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 14

damage, which he claims was required in order for the victim to be declared a

hostile witness. In response, the State argues that because the victim’s testimony

on cross-examination differed from her testimony on direct-examination, and also

contradicted her written statement provided to the police at the time of the incident,

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to treat her as a

hostile witness.

Standard of Review

{¶22} Evid.R. 611 governs the mode and order of interrogation of

witnesses, and it provides in section (C) as follows:

Leading Questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.

“ ‘Evid.R. 611(C) does not preclude the use of leading questions on direct

examination; instead, the rule provides that “it is within the trial court's discretion

to allow leading questions on direct examination.” ’ ” State v. Pickett, 2016-Ohio-

4593, ¶ 45 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-733, ¶ 34 (4th Dist.),

in turn quoting State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio St.3d 436, 449 (2001). See also State v.

Jarrells, 2014-Ohio-2816, ¶ 62-63 (4th Dist.).

{¶23} Furthermore, this Court has held that “[a] trial court’s decision on

whether to declare a witness hostile is a matter within its sound discretion.” State Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 15

v. Smith, ¶ 23 (4th Dist.) (also observing that “[a] trial court does not abuse its

discretion in finding that a wife-victim of domestic abuse who denies her initial

statements to police that the husband-defendant inflicted physical harm on her is a

hostile witness to the State”), citing Ramage v. Central Ohio Emergency Services,

Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 97, 111 (1992). See also Cleveland Heights v. Reed, 1995 WL

601126, *2 (8th Dist. Oct. 12, 1995) (“When a witness demonstrates hostility

during direct examination by changing testimony significantly from that which

counsel had good reason to expect, he was traditionally subject to leading

questions.”). “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more than an error of

judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable.” State v. Bennett, 2024-Ohio-4557, ¶ 40 (4th Dist.), citing

Wilmington Steel Prod., Inc. v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 60 Ohio St.3d 120, 122

(1991). “When applying the abuse-of-discretion standard of review, appellate

courts are not free to merely substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.”

Bennett, supra, citing In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137-38 (1991), in turn

citing Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 169 (1990).

Legal Analysis

{¶24} As set forth above, Dodridge contends that the trial court abused its

discretion in allowing the State to treat the victim as a hostile witness without a

showing of surprise and affirmative damage. Dodridge argues that a hostile Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 16

witness “is one who surprises the calling party at trial by turning against him while

testifying,” stating that the “traditional ‘hostile witness’ is addressed under Evid.R.

607.” However, in State v. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 152, the Supreme Court

of Ohio observed that “[a] hostile witness is one who is so evasive or

uncooperative on examination that his testimony is impeded.”

Evid.R. 607 governs impeachment and provides in section (A) as follows:

Who May Impeach. The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party except that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by the party calling the witness by means of a prior inconsistent statement only upon a showing of surprise and affirmative damage. This exception does not apply to statements admitted pursuant to Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(a), 801(D)(2), or 803.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals was presented with an argument that a

showing of surprise and affirmative damage was required in order to ask a hostile

witness leading questions. State v. Dolce, 92 Ohio App.3d 687, 703-704, (6th Dist.

1993). In response, that court reasoned as follows:

Appellant has confused Evid.R. 611(C) with Evid.R. 607, which addresses who may impeach and allows a party to impeach its own witness only upon a showing of surprise and affirmative damage. The state did not attempt to impeach [its witness], but simply wanted the opportunity to ask her leading questions upon redirect examination.

Id.

{¶25} However, five years later, this Court stated that “ ‘Evid.R. 607

requires a “showing of surprise and affirmative damage” before the court is Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 17

authorized to declare a witness hostile.’ ” State v. Lemaster, 1998 WL 27937, * 14

(4th Dist. Jan 27, 1998), quoting State v. Holmes, 30 Ohio St.3d 20, 23 (1987).

Despite the fact that this Court relied on authority from the Supreme Court of Ohio

in making this statement, we find this to be an incorrect application of the Rules of

Evidence. A plain reading of the rules provides that a trial court has discretion to

permit a hostile witness to be asked leading questions on direct examination.

Evid.R. 611. However, a trial court may only permit a hostile witness to be

impeached by means of a prior inconsistent statement “upon a showing of surprise

and affirmative damage.” Evid. R. 607(C). Thus, a witness may be declared

hostile, defined in McKelton as being “so evasive or uncooperative on examination

that his testimony is impeded,” under Evid.R. 611 for purposes of allowing leading

questions. This may be done without going the extra step of actually impeaching

the witness, which clearly requires a showing of surprise and affirmative damage

under Evid.R. 607(C).

{¶26} Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that a showing of surprise and

affirmative damage are required in order for a witness to be declared hostile, thus

permitting the calling party to ask the witness leading questions, we conclude such

a showing is evident in the record. As explained in State v. Smith, supra:

The existence of “surprise” concerning prior inconsistent statements is a decision within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Diehl (1981) 67 Ohio St.2d 389, 391, 423 N.E.2d 1112; State v. Reed (1981) 85 Ohio St.2d 117. Surprise exists if Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 18

the witness's trial testimony is “materially inconsistent” with a prior statement, and counsel lacked an “express forewarning” from the witness of his or her intent to recant or repudiate the prior statement. State v. Wisebaker (Aug. 8, 1996), Pike App. No. 96CA567, citing Reed at 125; State v. Blair (1986) 34 Ohio App.3d 6, 516 N.E.2d 240. A trial court does not abuse its discretion in finding that the prosecution was surprised when it was aware of a possibility that its witness may change his story but there is no express notice by the witness that he “would wholly deny his prior statement to the police officers”, by the witnesses' testimony differing from his prior statement to police. State v. Lewis (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 689, 696, 600 N.E.2d 764.

If a witness's testimony is inconsistent with the prior statements and also contradicts, denies, or harms the party's trial position, there is affirmative damage for purposes of Evid.R. 607. Wisebaker, citing State v. Stearns (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 11, 15, 454 N.E.2d 139.

Smith at ¶ 55-56.

{¶27} A review of the jury trial transcript reveals that the victim testified on

direct examination that, among other things, Dodridge grabbed her, causing her to

fall and pull her hair, that he took her phone and keys, and that he proceeded to

throw her to the ground and hit and kick her. She testified that she wanted to call

the police, but that she couldn’t because Dodridge had her phone and there was no

other phone in the house. Later, on cross-examination, the victim testified that she

didn’t feel she needed to call 911, had no intention of calling 911, and that there

was another phone in the house she could have used had she wanted to call 911.

With regard to her hair, she testified that her hair simply got caught when she was

walking away from Dodridge. Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 19

{¶28} On re-direct, the State asked follow-up questions related to the photo

of a large wad of her hair in the sink. The victim basically testified that the hair

just fell out when she took her hair down after the incident, seeming to suggest that

the photo of the hair in the sink was depicting normal hair loss. The State then

showed her a photo depicting a burn on her forehead, to which she responded that

she was not sure that the injury was caused during the incident. The State then

inquired as to why she had taken the photo if she wasn’t sure it had occurred that

night. At that point, the defense objected and the State informed the court that it

believed the victim was a hostile witness. The court, noting that the victim’s story

had changed several times, declared her to be a hostile witness. The defense again

objected, arguing that no surprise had been shown. The trial court overruled the

objection and the State then continued its re-direct examination of the victim

through leading questions, attempting to obtain testimony from the victim that was

consistent with her prior statement given to law enforcement, and also consistent

with her prior testimony during the hearing on the motion to compel discovery.

{¶29} Thus, the record clearly demonstrates that the victim was not only

inconsistent, uncooperative and evasive on the witness stand as to the origin of her

injuries, as well as whether or not Dodridge prevented her from calling for help on

the night of the incident, but this testimony surprised the State and the

inconsistency caused affirmative damage. Although the victim was a reluctant Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 20

witness and made it clear that she did not want the case to go forward, she had, on

prior occasions testified that the contents of the statement she provided to the

police was true and accurate. Therefore, the departure in her testimony on cross-

examination by the defense was clearly unexpected and resulted in surprise and

affirmative damage. Based upon the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the trial

court abused its discretion in initially declaring the victim to be a hostile witness

and permitting the State to ask her leading questions. Accordingly, we find no

merit to the arguments raised under Dodridge’s first assignment of error and it is

overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

{¶30} In his second assignment of error, Dodridge contends that the trial

court abused its discretion when it improperly questioned the victim. Dodridge

argues that the trial court interjected itself and questioned the victim while the

State was conducting re-direct and that the court’s questioning was not done in an

impartial manner. More specifically, Dodridge argues that the trial court’s

questioning violated his right to a fair trial because the court’s statements indicated

“that it anticipated [an] outcome and ‘steered’ the proceedings when it interjected

during the State’s questioning.” Finally, Dodridge contends that the trial court

“actively assisted the State in its effort to impeach [the victim’s] credibility.” Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 21

{¶31} The State responds by arguing that Evid.R. 614 granted the trial court

discretion to interrogate witnesses and also requires that the defense object to the

questioning in order to preserve the error for appeal. The State contends that the

trial court’s questions did not indicate any bias and was only done in an attempt to

refresh the victim’s recollection. The State further contends that because defense

counsel did not object to the trial court’s interrogation of the victim, that the

claimed error has been waived.

{¶32} Evid.R. 614 governs the calling and interrogation of witnesses by the

court and provides in section (B) that “[t]he court may interrogate witnesses, in an

impartial manner, whether called by itself or by a party.” It further provides in

section (C) that “[o]bjections to the calling of witnesses by the court or to

interrogation by it may be made at the time or at the next available opportunity

when the jury is not present.” In State v. Davis, 79 Ohio App.3d 450, 454 (4th

Dist. 1992), this Court explained as follows:

During a trial, the judge may, in the interest of justice, act impartially in developing facts germane to an issue of fact to be determined by the jury. Lodi v. McMasters (1986), 31 Ohio App.3d 275, 31 OBR 603, 511 N.E.2d 123. The court, in questioning a witness pursuant to Evid.R. 614(B), may not indicate by its intensity, tenor, range and persistence the court's opinion of a witness's credibility or the sufficiency of the testimony. See, e.g., State v. Hicks (Aug. 16, 1991), Lucas App. No. L-83-074, unreported, 1991 WL 156534, citing State ex rel. Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 22

Wise v. Chand (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 113, 50 O.O.2d 322, 256 N.E.2d 613, paragraph four of the syllabus.

“We review a trial court’s interrogation of witnesses for an abuse of discretion.”

State v. Smith, supra, at ¶ 34, citing State v. Davis, at 454.

{¶33} In response to the State’s contention that Dodridge has waived any

argument related the to the trial court’s questioning of the victim because he did

not raise an objection at trial, Dodridge argues in his reply brief that he did, in fact,

object at the first opportunity outside the presence of the jury, as required by

Evid.R. 614(C). He alternatively argues that the trial court’s questioning of the

witness in the manner that it did constituted plain error.

{¶34} A review of the trial transcript confirms that no objection was made

by the defense when the trial court began questioning the victim. Furthermore, at

the next opportunity outside the presence of the jury, although the defense lodged

an objection to the admission of the police report being admitted as an exhibit for

purposes of impeachment, it did not object to the trial court’s questioning of the

victim. In fact, defense counsel stated that it had no problem with the use of the

victim’s prior statement to refresh her recollection, which the transcript

demonstrates was the trial court’s goal in questioning her. Thus, we conclude that

this argument has been waived for purposes of appeal, with the exception of a plain

error review. Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 23

{¶35} An appellate court “ ‘will not consider any error which counsel for a

party complaining of the trial court's judgment could have called but did not call to

the trial court's attention at a time when such error could have been avoided or

corrected by the trial court.’ ” State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 122 (1986),

quoting State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56 (1968), paragraph three of the syllabus.

Appellate courts may, however, consider a forfeited argument using a plain-error

analysis. State v. Shields, 2023-Ohio-2331, ¶ 72 (4th Dist.). Crim.R. 52(B) states:

“Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they

were not brought to the attention of the court.” It is the defendant's burden to

“establish that an error occurred, it was obvious, and it affected his or her

substantial rights.” State v. Fannon, 2018-Ohio-5242, ¶ 21 (4th Dist.) “Notice of

plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) is to be taken with the utmost caution, under

exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.”

State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.

{¶36} As set forth above, Evid.R. 611 governs the mode and order of the

interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence. As discussed above,

although Evid.R. 611(C) permits the trial court to declare a witness to be a hostile

witness and permits the calling party to cross-examine its own witness, Evid.R.

611(A) also provides that the trial court may question a witness, as follows:

Control by Court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 24

presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

To those ends, as set forth above, the rules of evidence also provide that a court

may, in its discretion and within certain parameters, interrogate witnesses.

{¶37} Here, a review of the trial transcript demonstrates that shortly after

the court declared the victim to be a hostile witness, and after the State cross-

examined the victim with a series of questions that appeared to be leading to an

impeachment of the victim by virtue of the State’s request that the victim be

ordered to read her prior written statement that was attached to the police report

into the record in front of the jury, the trial court intervened. The trial court did

state, in front of the jury, that the State was “getting into impeachment.” At that

juncture, the trial court stopped the State’s questioning and directed the victim to

read her prior written statement, to herself and not to the jury, in order to refresh

her recollection. The court then briefly questioned the victim, asking her if she

could confirm that the prior written statement was made by her and whether any of

her testimony in court that day had unintentionally differed from her prior

statement. In response, the victim stated that “If I said that he didn’t have my

phone and try to break it – that was unintentional.” The court then asked the

victim if she was now correcting her testimony, and the victim affirmed that she Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 25

was. At that point, the State continued with its re-direct of the victim. The victim,

from that point forward, testified consistently with her prior written statement.

{¶38} Based upon the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s

decision to interrogate the witness or that the manner in which the court

interrogated the witness resulted in plain error. Rather, we conclude that the trial

court’s questioning of the victim was conducted in an impartial manner in an effort

to develop the facts germane to the issues before the jury, and in order to avoid

undue embarrassment to the victim that would have occurred had she been

impeached by the State in front of the jury. As stated by the trial court later in the

transcript, outside the presence of the jury:

COURT: So, I want to make the record clear on this. We got into a little bit in front of the jury, but didn’t want to get too deep. So, police reports don’t come into evidence. They can come in, I think, under certain exceptions when they’re offered for impeachment purposes. Definitely are able to use to refresh recollection. That’s what I was steering that toward and steering it away from reading it into the record and admission. The problem is, is we’ve had her in here before, under oath, sworn to testify, what that report in her hand, and she testified, ‘That is my words.’ Now, she said she didn’t want to write it, and I think it was Gue that was standing over her and said you write it or we’re taking the kids based on what Child Protective Services’ said. So, we know that whole story, but the essence of it was she has testified in this courtroom, on this stand, under oath, that those are her own words in her report. She testified directly opposite of some of the things that she said, subjecting herself to, at best, false swearing. At worst, perjury, in Court. I don’t want to see that happen to any witness, especially we know the sympathy factor in here, because she’s been adamant from day one, she didn’t want this case to go where it’s going. So, part of what I Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 26

was doing was deflecting that to get it in without having an admission right then of the entire report and all the content, but I did want her to refreshing [sic] her recollection. And I think she cured some of those issues.

The court went on to explain that although the victim’s prior written statement,

which was appended to the police report, had been marked for identification

purposes, it was going to defer ruling on the admission of the document, explaining

that “in the four corners of the rule for impeachment, that document was used to

impeach her testimony, but I gauged it as a refresh of recollection.” The court

further stated that “I wanted the record to be clear for appeal purposes, whomever

has the right to appeal in this case, why I did what I did.”

{¶39} In State v. Smith, supra, the trial court “interrupted and repeatedly

tried to get” one of the victims to repeat the conversation she had with another

victim while traveling to the police station on the day of the incident. Smith at ¶

38. In Smith, no objection had been made to the court’s questioning and this Court

was reviewing the argument under a plain error standard. Id. We determined that

because the conversation between the victims was “germane to an issue of fact, i.e.

whether [the victims] fabricated their statements to the police[,]” the trial court

“acted impartially in developing the facts.” Id. at ¶ 39.

{¶40} In Andrew v. Power Marketing Direct, Inc., 2012-Ohio-4371, ¶ 78

(10th Dist.), another case involving a plain error review of a trial court’s

questioning of witnesses at trial, the court observed that “[a] trial court is obligated Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 27

to control the proceedings before it, to clarify ambiguities, and to take steps to

ensure substantial justice.” Citing Brothers v. Morrone-O'Keefe Dev. Co., LLC,

2006-Ohio-1160, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). The court stated that “[a]ccordingly, a trial

court should not hesitate to pose pertinent and even-handed questions to

witnesses.” Id. The court further observed as follows:

Evid.R. 614(B), however, requires the court to question impartially and thus tempers a trial court's ability to question a witness. Brothers at ¶ 12. If the trial court's questions can reasonably indicate to the jury the court's opinion of the witness’s credibility or the weight to be given that witness's testimony, the questions are prejudicially erroneous. State ex rel. Wise v. Chand, 21 Ohio St.2d 113, 256 N.E.2d 613 (1970), paragraph four of the syllabus. “[A]bsent ‘ “any showing of bias, prejudice, or prodding of a witness to elicit partisan testimony, it will be presumed that the trial court acted with impartiality [in * * * [its] questions from the bench] in attempting to ascertain a material fact or to develop the truth.” ’ ” Brothers at ¶ 12, quoting State v. Baston, 85 Ohio St.3d 418, 426, 709 N.E.2d 128 (1999), quoting Jenkins v. Clark, 7 Ohio App.3d 93, 98, 454 N.E.2d 541 (2d Dist.1982). “A trial court's questioning of a witness is not impartial merely because it elicits evidence that is damaging to one of the parties.” Brothers at ¶ 12, citing [Klasa v. Rogers, 8th Dist. No. 83374, 2004-Ohio-4490, at ¶ 32].

Id. at ¶ 79

{¶41} We cannot conclude, based upon the foregoing, that the trial court’s

questioning of the victim resulted in plain error. As noted above, the record does

not support the argument that the trial court questioned the witness impartially or

that its questioning assisted in the State’s attempt to impeach its own witness.

Instead, the record demonstrates that the trial court intervened in the State’s re- Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 28

direct examination of the victim in order to control the proceedings, prevent the

victim’s prior inconsistent statement from being read into evidence in front of the

jury, and to try to clarify the victim’s testimony in a search for the truth. Thus, we

find no merit to the arguments raised under Dodridge’s second assignment of error.

Accordingly, it is overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

{¶42} Dodridge contends in his third assignment of error that the trial court

abused its discretion when it admitted portions of the police report into evidence.

More specifically, Dodridge argues that the trial court erred by delaying ruling on

the admission of the victim’s statement, which was attached to the police report,

because it prevented him from being able to cross-examine the victim regarding

the statement while she was testifying. He further argues that the trial court erred

in allowing the State to read portions of the victim’s statement during closing

arguments, and also erred in ultimately admitting the statement as an exhibit.

Dodridge also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a

disciplinary report related to an incident that occurred at his previous employment

with Necco.

{¶43} The State responds by arguing that the victim’s prior statement was

admitted as evidence of a prior inconsistent statement offered for impeachment

purposes and points out that the police report itself was not admitted as an exhibit. Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 29

The State further argues that even if the admission of the statement was error, it

was harmless error. The State also argues, with respect to the admission of the

Necco report, that the report was admitted for impeachment purposes and that

Dodridge opened the door for questioning on this topic when he denied that he was

ever disciplined while employed at Necco.

{¶44} “ ‘A trial court has broad discretion in the admission or exclusion of

evidence, and so long as such discretion is exercised in line with the rules of

procedure and evidence, its judgment will not be reversed absent a clear showing

of an abuse of discretion with attendant material prejudice to defendant.’ ” State v.

Jones, 2021-Ohio-2601, ¶ 49 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Ward, 2003-Ohio-5650, ¶

32 (4th Dist.), in turn citing Rigby v. Lake Cty., 58 Ohio St.3d 269, 271 (1991).

“ ‘[T]rial witnesses may be impeached pursuant to Evid.R. 613(B) through the use

of their own prior inconsistent statements.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Jones at ¶ 49,

quoting State v. Byrd, 1998 WL 2403, *2 (4th Dist. Jan. 6, 1998), citing State v.

Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 207 (1996).

{¶45} Evid.R. 613 governs impeachment by self-contradiction. Evid.R.

613(A) addresses the examining of a witness concerning a prior statement and

states, regarding the prior statement itself, that “the statement need not be shown Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 30

nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall

be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.” Evid.R. 613(B) addresses extrinsic

evidence of a prior inconsistent statement of a witness and states that extrinsic

evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is admissible if both of the

following apply:

(1) If the statement is offered solely for the purpose of impeaching the witness, the witness is afforded a prior opportunity to explain or deny the statement and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness on the statement or the interests of justice otherwise require;

(2) The subject matter of the statement is one of the following:

(a) A fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action other than the credibility of a witness;

(b) A fact that may be shown by extrinsic evidence under Evid.R. 608(A), 609, 616(A), or 616(B);

(c) A fact that may be shown by extrinsic evidence under the common law of impeachment if not in conflict with the Rule of Evidence.

The Second District Court of Appeals has explained that:

asking a witness about a prior inconsistent statement does not involve extrinsic evidence of that prior inconsistent statement. It is only when the party examining the witness wants to offer evidence of the prior inconsistent statement other than the witness's own acknowledgment of that statement that extrinsic evidence is involved and the requirements of Evid.R. 613(B) apply.

State v Pierce, 2011-Ohio-4873, ¶ 84 (2d. Dist.). Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 31

{¶46} This Court has previously addressed the admission of a prior

inconsistent statement as extrinsic evidence under Evid.R. 613(B), explaining as

follows:

When extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is offered into evidence under Evid.R. 613(B), “ ‘a foundation must be established through direct or cross-examination in which: (1) the witness is presented with the former statement; (2) the witness is asked whether he made the statement; (3) the witness is given an opportunity to admit, deny or explain the statement; and (4) the opposing party is given an opportunity to interrogate the witness on the inconsistent statement.’ ” State v. Mack, 73 Ohio St.3d 502, 514-515, 653 N.E.2d 329 (1995), quoting State v. Theuring, 46 Ohio App.3d 152, 155, 546 N.E.2d 436 (1988); State v. Schofield, 4th Dist. Washington Nos. 01CA36, 02CA13, 2002-Ohio-6945, ¶ 134. When the proponent lays a proper foundation, the evidence does not relate to collateral matters, and the witness denies making the statement, the proponent may offer extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement. Schofield at ¶ 135.

State v. Hall, 2014-Ohio-2959, ¶ 35 (4th Dist.). See also State v. Pierce, supra, at

¶ 81.

{¶47} We have already detailed the victim’s testimony above which led her

to being declared a hostile witness and also resulted in her being interrogated by

the court. After closely reviewing the record, we are not convinced that the victim

was impeached by either the trial court or the State while she was testifying before

the jury. As referenced above, the trial court declared the victim to be a hostile

witness at the State’s request, permitting the State to then ask the victim a series of

leading questions. Then, when the State asked the victim to read her prior Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 32

statement to the jury and it looked like an impeachment of the witness was

impending, the trial court intervened and asked the witness to refresh her

recollection by reading her prior statement to herself. The trial court then gave her

the opportunity to clarify and/or correct any “unintentional” testimony she had just

given, particularly with respect to whether or not Dodridge had taken her cell

phone and attempted to break it during the incident, which she did. The trial court

then promptly turned the witness back over to the State for continued questioning.

The trial transcript indicates that the victim was no longer uncooperative at that

point and testified in accordance with her prior statement she made on the night of

the incident.

{¶48} Thus, after refreshing her recollection, the victim’s testimony came

in line with what had been anticipated by the State and she did not deny making

the prior statement. We cannot conclude, based upon the record before us, that the

victim was actually impeached by her prior testimony. As explained in State v.

Pierce, “ ‘[i]f the witness admits making the conflicting statement, then there is no

need for extrinsic evidence.” Pierce, supra, at ¶ 82, quoting State v. Harris, 1994

WL 718227, 2d. Dist. Dec. 21, 1994). See also State v. Johnson, 2015-Ohio-5491

(2d. Dist.) (“If the witness admits making the conflicting statement, then there is

no need for extrinsic evidence.”). This brings us to a problem, however, because

the trial court ultimately admitted the statement into evidence after it reasoned Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 33

itself to the conclusion that the victim had been impeached, and therefore the

statement was permitted into evidence.

{¶49} It is unclear from the record why the trial court reached this

conclusion, especially considering it went to great lengths to explain on the record,

outside the presence of the jury, that it refreshed the victim’s recollection rather

than letting her be impeached with the statement. The court explained that this was

done primarily so that the jury would not be tainted, and also because the statement

at issue was part of a police report, which is hearsay for which no exception

applies. As the court was reasoning through its decision on this issue, defense

counsel pointed out to the court that the victim corrected her testimony. The State

persisted that the written statement was admissible as an impeachment document

and the trial court admitted it. It was marked as an exhibit and, as noted by

Dodridge, the prosecutor read the victim’s prior statement to the jury during his

closing arguments.

{¶50} We conclude that, based upon the record before us, the trial court

erred and abused its discretion in admitting the victim’s prior written statement,

which was part of the police report. However, because prior to admission of this

extrinsic evidence the victim reluctantly testified that Dodridge did, in fact, take

her phone and try to break it, which prevented her from calling 911, and also

testified that Dodridge did cause a scratch to her finger and ear, that Dodridge Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 34

grabbed her resulting in her hair coming out, and then pushed her to the ground

and proceeded to hit and kick her, the admission of the prior written statement

constituted harmless error. This determination is bolstered by the fact that

Dodridge’s daughter also testified regarding the events of that evening. She

testified that she heard arguing during the night and tried to go back to sleep. She

awoke again to the sound of more arguing at which point she went upstairs to find

the victim on the ground while Dodridge was punching and kicking her. She

testified that the victim yelled for her to call the police, but that she couldn’t

because she didn’t have a phone and there was no house phone. She testified that

Dodridge told her she couldn’t call because he had the victim’s phone, and that she

could see that Dodridge had a phone in each of his pockets. She further testified

that the victim had marks all over her and that she took several photos of the victim

at the victim’s request once Dodridge left the house.

{¶51} Crim.R. 52(A) provides: “Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance

which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” An error is harmless

when the error did not impact the verdict, the error was harmless beyond a

reasonable doubt, and after excising the erroneously admitted evidence, the

remaining evidence establishes the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Harris, 2015-Ohio-166, ¶ 37 (2d Dist.). Additionally, “the admission of

hearsay is harmless error where the declarant was also a witness and examined Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 35

regarding matters identical to those contained in the hearsay statements.” State v.

Williams, 2016-Ohio-322 ¶ 37 (2d Dist.).3 Further, as recently noted in State v.

Sims, in situations where admission of hearsay statements is merely cumulative to

in-court statements and direct testimony, especially where the declarant was

subject to cross-examination, such error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Sims, 2023-Ohio-1179, ¶ 71 (4th Dist.). See also State v. Walker, 2001

WL 1782885,*3-4 (5th Dist. Feb. 20, 2001) (finding the admission of a police

report, absent a showing of surprise and affirmative damage, to be harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt). Walker

involved the impeachment of a domestic violence victim by the State despite the

State’s admission that there was no showing of surprise or affirmative damage and

no declaration that the witness was hostile. Id.

{¶52} Thus, although we have concluded that the trial court erred and

abused its discretion in admitting the victim’s prior statement, purportedly as

extrinsic evidence used for impeachment purposes, we have also concluded that

such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as it was cumulative, and also

because the remaining evidence in the record establishes Dodridge’s guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt.

3 As set forth above, although the trial court did delay ruling on the admission of the prior statement, it issued its ruling admitting the statement prior to the start of Dodridge’s case-in-chief and informed him that he could call the victim back to the stand and that he would be permitted to liberally question her regarding her prior statement. Dodridge, however, ultimately chose not to do so. Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 36

{¶53} Our analysis under this assignment of error cannot yet be concluded,

however, because Dodridge also challenges the admission of a disciplinary report

from his former employer, Necco. The transcript demonstrates that Dodridge

chose to testify at trial and on cross-examination, he denied having ever been

disciplined at work. The State impeached his testimony through the introduction

of a “Necco Center Notice of Investigative Restriction” form which Dodridge had

previously signed and which purportedly imposed some working restrictions with

respect to a certain individual due to a pending investigation. We find this

document was properly admitted as impeachment evidence and the trial court did

not err or abuse its discretion in admitting it.4

{¶54} In light of the foregoing, we find no merit to the arguments raised

under Dodridge’s third assignment of error. Accordingly, this assignment of error

is overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV

{¶55} In his fourth assignment of error, Dodridge contends that the trial

court erred when it did not instruct the jury regarding impeachment evidence.

Dodridge argues that although the trial court admitted the victim’s prior written

statement and the Necco report, it did not instruct the jury to limit its deliberation

4 Although Dodridge contends that this document was also part of a police report, a review of the record does not indicate this to be true. Instead, the document appears to be an internal Necco form. Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 37

of the exhibits to impeachment evidence for credibility purposes only and instruct

them that the documents could not be considered as substantive evidence.

Dodridge argues that this resulted in prejudice to him “as the State was then

allowed to present the evidence for the truth of the matters asserted, violating [his]

confrontation rights and right to due process and a fair trial.” He further argues

that the court had a duty to properly instruct the jury, “irrespective of whether

counsel asked for a special instruction[,]” appearing to concede that there was no

objection to the jury instructions below and urging a plain error review. The State

responds by arguing that the outcome of the trial would not have differed had an

impeachment instruction been issued and therefore, Dodridge was not denied a fair

trial.

{¶56} When reviewing errors in a jury instruction, a trial court must

consider a jury charge as a whole. State v. Huish, 2023-Ohio-365, ¶ 54 (10th

Dist.), citing Cromer v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron, 2015-Ohio-229, ¶ 35-

36. However, “[a]n unnecessary, ambiguous, or even affirmatively erroneous

portion of a jury charge does not inevitably constitute reversible error.” Id. When

a jury instruction incorrectly states the law, a reviewing court applies a mixed de

novo and abuse of discretion standard of review, examining the jury charge as a

whole and determining “whether the jury charge probably misled the jury in a Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 38

matter materially affecting the complaining party's substantial rights.” Id. “A

criminal defendant has the right to expect that the trial court will give complete

jury instructions on all issues raised by the evidence.” State v. Howard, 2007-

Ohio-6331, ¶ 26 (4th Dist.). “[A] trial court should give a proposed jury

instruction if it is a correct statement of the law and is applicable to the facts of the

particular case.” Id., citing Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585, 591

(1991).

{¶57} Dodridge concedes that counsel did not request a limiting instruction

and urges that the trial court committed plain error in instructing the jury. “The

Supreme Court of Ohio has found that an erroneous jury instruction does not meet

the plain error threshold unless, ‘ “but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly

would have been otherwise.” ’ ” State v. Brock, 2024-Ohio-1036, ¶ 30 (4th Dist.),

quoting State v. McCown, 2006-Ohio-6040, ¶ 38 (10th Dist.), in turn quoting State

v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v.

Cunningham, 2004-Ohio-7007, ¶ 56, citing State v. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12

(1983), syllabus. Courts ordinarily should take notice of plain error “with utmost

caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a manifest

miscarriage of justice.” State v. Gardner, 2008-Ohio-2787, ¶ 78; State v.

Patterson, 2006-Ohio-1902, ¶ 13 (4th Dist.). A reviewing court should consider

noticing plain error only if the error “ ‘ “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 39

public reputation of judicial proceedings.” ’ ” Barnes at 27, quoting United States

v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993), in turn quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297

U.S. 157, 160 (1936). Therefore, we must determine whether the jury instructions

were confusing or misleading so as to have altered the outcome of the trial.

{¶58} Dodridge contends that admission of the Necco report, along with the

admission of the victim’s written statement provided to police, should have been

accompanied by a limiting instruction, but that they were not. He argues that the

failure to provide a limiting instruction constituted plain error. We agree that such

an instruction should have been provided. However, for the same reasons that we

found the admission of the victim’s prior written statement to be harmless error,

we cannot conclude that the trial court’s failure to provide a limiting instruction

constituted plain error.

{¶59} The record contains testimony by the victim, albeit given reluctantly,

that Dodridge assaulted her on the night in question by grabbing her, injuring her

ear, and throwing her down to the ground and hitting and kicking her. The record

contains photographic evidence of injuries she sustained that night. Additionally,

Dodridge’s daughter, who was a witness to a portion of the events, testified that 1)

she was unable to call 911 despite the victim requesting her to do so; and 2) she

witnessed her father hitting and kicking the victim while she was laying on the Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 40

floor. His daughter also identified several photos she took depicting the victim’s

injuries that were present on the night of the incident. The record further contains

testimony by the victim that Dodridge took her phone and tried to break it during

the incident, preventing her from calling for help.

{¶60} In light of this evidence, we cannot conclude that the outcome of the

trial would have been different but for the provision of a limiting instruction

related to the admission of these two documents. Thus, we find no merit to the

arguments raised under this assignment of error. Accordingly, it is overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V

{¶61} In his fifth assignment of error, Dodridge contends that his counsel

was ineffective for failing to object to the jury instructions or request a limiting

instruction. More specifically, Dodridge argues that although his counsel objected

throughout the trial to the admission of impeachment evidence, counsel failed to 1)

request the trial court issue a limiting instruction; and 2) object to the court’s

failure to instruct the jury regarding impeachment evidence. The State responds by

arguing that because the record contains testimony by the victim regarding the

domestic altercation as well as exhibits depicting her injuries, the outcome of the

trial would not have been different had counsel either requested a limiting

instruction or objected to the instructions as given.

Standard of Review Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 41

{¶62} The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article

I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution provide that defendants in all criminal

proceedings shall have the assistance of counsel for their defense. The United

States Supreme Court has generally interpreted this provision to mean a criminal

defendant is entitled to the “reasonably effective assistance” of counsel. Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); accord Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 263, 272

(2014) (explaining that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel means “that

defendants are entitled to be represented by an attorney who meets at least a

minimal standard of competence”).

{¶63} To establish constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, a

defendant must show: 1) that his counsel's performance was deficient; and 2) that

the deficient performance prejudiced the defense and deprived the defendant of a

fair trial. E.g., Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; State v. Myers, 2018-Ohio-1903, ¶ 183;

State v. Powell, 2012-Ohio-2577, ¶ 85. “Failure to establish either element is fatal

to the claim.” State v. Jones, 2008-Ohio-968, ¶ 14 (4th Dist.). Therefore, if one

element is dispositive, a court need not analyze both. State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio

St.3d 378, 389 (2000) (stating that a defendant's failure to satisfy one of the

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel elements “negates a court's need to consider the

other”). Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 42

{¶64} The deficient performance part of an ineffectiveness claim “is

necessarily linked to the practice and expectations of the legal community: ‘The

proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under

prevailing professional norms.’ ” Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 366 (2010),

quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688; accord Hinton, 571 U.S. at 273. Prevailing

professional norms dictate that “a lawyer must have ‘full authority to manage the

conduct of the trial.’ ” State v. Pasqualone, 2009-Ohio-315, ¶ 24, quoting Taylor

v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 418 (1988).

{¶65} Furthermore, “ ‘[i]n any case presenting an ineffectiveness claim,

“the performance inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable

considering all the circumstances.’ ” Hinton, 571 U.S. at 273, quoting Strickland,

466 U.S. at 688. Accordingly, “[i]n order to show deficient performance, the

defendant must prove that counsel's performance fell below an objective level of

reasonable representation.” (Citations omitted). State v. Conway, 2006-Ohio-

2815, ¶ 95.

{¶66} Moreover, when considering whether trial counsel's representation

amounts to deficient performance, “a court must indulge a strong presumption that

counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional

assistance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Thus, “the defendant must overcome the

presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 43

considered sound trial strategy.” Id. Additionally, “[a] properly licensed attorney

is presumed to execute his duties in an ethical and competent manner.” State v.

Taylor, 2008-Ohio-482, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98,

100 (1985). Therefore, a defendant bears the burden to show ineffectiveness by

demonstrating that counsel's errors were “so serious” that counsel failed to function

“as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed * * * by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland, 466 U.S.

at 687; e.g., State v. Gondor, 2006-Ohio-6679, ¶ 62; State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio

St.3d 153, 156 (1988).

{¶67} To establish prejudice under the ineffective assistance of counsel

standard, a defendant must demonstrate that a reasonable probability exists that

“ ‘but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine the outcome.’ ”

Hinton, 571 U.S. at 275, quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694; e.g., State v. Short,

2011-Ohio-3641, ¶ 113; State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989), paragraph

three of the syllabus; accord State v. Spaulding, 2016-Ohio-8126, ¶ 91 (indicating

that prejudice component requires a “but for” analysis). “ ‘[T]he question is

whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder

would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt.’ ” Hinton, 571 U.S. at 275,

quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695. Furthermore, courts ordinarily may not Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 44

simply presume the existence of prejudice but, instead, must require the defendant

to affirmatively establish prejudice. State v. Clark, 2003-Ohio-1707, ¶ 22 (4th

Dist.); State v. Tucker, 2002-Ohio-1597 (4th Dist. Apr. 2, 2002). As we have

repeatedly recognized, speculation is insufficient to establish the prejudice

component of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. E.g., State v. Tabor,

2017-Ohio-8656, ¶ 34 (4th Dist.); State v. Jenkins, 2014-Ohio-3123, ¶ 22 (4th

Dist.; State v. Simmons, 2013-Ohio-2890, ¶ 25 (4th Dist.); State v. Halley, 2012-

Ohio-1625, ¶ 25 (4th Dist.); State v. Leonard, 2009-Ohio-6191, ¶ 68 (4th Dist.);

accord State v. Powell, 2012-Ohio-2577 ¶ 86 (stating that an argument that is

purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim).

{¶68} As set forth above, Dodridge argues that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel by virtue of his counsel’s failure to either request a limiting

instruction or object to the jury instructions, with respect to the admission of the

impeachment evidence discussed above. As noted under our analysis of

Dodridge’s fourth assignment of error, we agree that counsel should have

requested that a limiting instruction be given. We further find that counsel should

have objected to the trial court instructing the jury without including such an

instruction as part of the overall instructions provided to the jury. However,

assuming arguendo, that trial counsel acted deficiently by failing to make this

request/objection, we have already determined that the outcome of the trial would Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 45

not have been different but for the provision of a limiting instruction related to the

admission of these two exhibits.

{¶69} Here, we have already found that the trial court’s admission of the

victim’s statement attached to the police report, as well as the Necco report, did not

change the outcome of the trial and therefore did not result in plain error. We

likewise found that the trial court’s failure to give the jury a limiting instruction

regarding the impeachment evidence did not result in plain error. Again, the

record contains evidence in the form of testimony from the victim herself

regarding the injuries inflicted by Appellant on the night of the incident. There is

also evidence in the form of testimony from Appellant’s daughter, who witnessed a

portion of the events. Additionally, photos of the victim’s injuries were admitted

into evidence. Because of this, we now also find that the outcome of the trial

would not have been different but for counsel’s errors and, therefore, Dodridge has

not proven the prejudice required in order to demonstrate a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Thus, we find no merit to the arguments raised under this

assignment of error. Accordingly, Dodridge’s fifth assignment of error is

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI

{¶70} Dodridge contends in his sixth assignment of error that the State

violated his right to due process when it failed to preserve materially exculpatory Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 46

evidence that had been requested in discovery. Dodridge also contends that the

trial court erred in denying his oral motion in limine that was made the morning of

trial, which requested that the State not be permitted “to introduce photographs

because it destroyed the body camera footage and the messages containing

photographs allegedly sent to Sergeant McKnight from [the victim].” Dodridge

argues that video footage from Captain Gue’s body cam would have been both

materially exculpatory and potentially useful had he actually activated his camera

pursuant to the police department’s policy. Dodridge further argues that the State

acted in bad faith to the extent that it did not request Sergeant McKnight’s body

cam footage in a timely manner prior to it being destroyed pursuant to policy. The

State responds by arguing that neither Gue or McKnight had any interaction with

Dodridge when they responded to the incident and it also argues that Dodridge

cannot prove that the State acted in bad faith in failing to preserve the one minute

and forty-nine second footage of video from McKnight’s body cam.

{¶71} A criminal defendant's due process right to a fair trial is violated

when the prosecution withholds materially exculpatory evidence. Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); State v. Geeslin, 2007-Ohio-5239, ¶ 7; State v.

Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48, 60 (1988). State v. Fox, 2012-Ohio-4805, ¶ 25 (4th

Dist.). To determine if a defendant's alleged due process rights are violated, courts Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 47

characterize lost or destroyed evidence as: 1) “materially exculpatory”; or 2)

“potentially useful.” State v. Gerald, 2014-Ohio-3629, ¶ 15 (4th Dist.). Evidence

is materially exculpatory “ ‘only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the

evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have

been different. A “reasonable probability” is a probability sufficient to undermine

confidence in the outcome.’ ” State v Johnston, , supra, at 61, quoting United

States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682; Fox, supra, at ¶ 25.

{¶72} The Brady test is stringent and it has been held that the constitutional

“materiality” requirement is not met when there is only a mere possibility that an

item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense or might have

affected the outcome of the trial. Fox, supra, citing State v. Jackson, 57 Ohio St.3d

29, 33 (1991), in turn citing United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109-110 (1976).

Accord Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 56 (1988), fn. 1; State v. Rivas, 2009-

Ohio-1354, ¶ 14 (stating that speculation is not sufficient to establish that withheld

evidence is material). Whether evidence is materially exculpatory is a question of

law. See State v. Blanton, 2018-Ohio-1278, ¶ 88 (4th Dist.), citing Geeslin at ¶ 12-

13 (not specifically setting forth standard of review but appearing to review

materially exculpatory question as a matter of law).

{¶73} Ordinarily, a defendant bears the burden to prove that withheld

evidence is materially exculpatory. Fox at ¶ 26; Rivas at ¶ 14; State v. Lupardus Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 48

2008-Ohio-5960, ¶ 20 (4th Dist.). However, when a defendant specifically

requests a particular piece of evidence and that evidence is subsequently lost or

destroyed, the burden shifts to the State to show that the evidence was not

materially exculpatory. (Citations omitted). Lupardus at ¶ 21. The burden does

not shift to the State if the defendant makes only a general request for discovery.

Lupardus at ¶ 22. Instead, for the burden to shift to the State, the defendant must

have made a specific request regarding the particular piece of evidence. Lupardus

at ¶ 22. Thus, when “evidence is destroyed pursuant to routine procedures before

any request for it has been made, it is not the State's burden to show that the

evidence was not exculpatory, but rather Defendant's burden to show that it was

exculpatory.” State v. Terry, 2004-Ohio-7257, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.).

{¶74} If a defendant is unable to show that the withheld evidence is

materially exculpatory, a defendant may instead show a violation of his due

process right to a fair trial if the prosecution withheld, in bad faith, potentially

useful evidence. Geeslin at ¶ 14. In Gerald, this Court observed that the term “bad

faith” generally suggests something more than bad judgment. Gerald, supra, at ¶

18, citing State v. Buhrman, 1997 WL 566154, *12 (2d Dist. Sept. 12, 1997).

Instead, the term “ ‘ “imports a dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, conscious

wrongdoing, breach of a known duty through some ulterior motive or [ill] will Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 49

partaking of the nature of fraud.” ’ ” (Citations omitted). Id. The term “bad faith”

also includes an actual intent to mislead or deceive another. Id.

{¶75} Here, we must first consider who bears the burden to show whether

the body cam footage and photos were materially exculpatory. Dodridge

specifically requested this evidence in discovery multiple times; however, the State

failed to preserve it or prevent it from being destroyed pursuant to its evidence

retention policy. Therefore, we find the burden shifted to the State to prove that

the requested evidence was not materially exculpatory.

{¶76} Initially, with respect to Dodridge’s assertions related to Captain Gue

not activating his body cam during the incident and Sergeant McKnight only

activating his body cam for less than two minutes, other courts have determined

“that a failure of the police to create an audio or video recording, even if the

recording could be potentially useful to the defense, does not violate a defendant’s

due process rights.” State v. Wyse, 2022-Ohio-1979, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.). This is

because, according to Wyse, “[t]he law is clear that ‘[t]he Due Process Clause of

the United States Constitution does not require the state to employ particular

investigative techniques to the defendant’s liking.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Wooten,

2002 WL 488122, *3 (4th Dist. Mar. 25, 2002). In Wyse, the responding officer

failed to activate his body cam until after the defendant was placed under arrest for Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 50

violating a “stay at home order” during the recent pandemic. Wyse at ¶ 6-8. The

court found that the officer “had no constitutionally mandated duty to record his

encounter with Wyse” and that “his failure to create such evidence did not result in

any violation of Wyse’s due process rights.” Id. at ¶ 17. Applying the reasoning

set forth in Wyse, which we conclude is sound, we cannot conclude that Dodridge’s

due process rights were violated when Captain Gue failed to activate his body cam

when he responded to the incident at issue. The same is true regarding Sergeant

McKnight’s failure to record the encounter, with the exception of two minutes.

{¶77} We next consider whether the video footage was materially

exculpatory or potentially useful and, if the latter, was it withheld in bad faith by

the State. Again, evidence is materially exculpatory “ ‘only if there is a reasonable

probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the

proceeding would have been different.’ ” State v Johnston, supra, at 61, quoting

United States v. Bagley, supra, at 682; Fox, supra, at ¶ 25. The only possible

video footage that could have been disclosed was the one minute and forty-nine

second clip from Sergeant McKnight’s body camera. The victim testified during

the hearing on the motion to compel that she did not remember any interaction

with McKnight on the day the report was made. Further, although she claimed that

Captain Gue and CPS informed her that her children would be taken if she didn’t

cooperate, she testified at the hearing on the motion to compel and again during the Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 51

trial that the statement she provided to police after the incident was accurate and

that she had told the truth, despite the fact that she did not want to provide a

statement.

{¶78} Assuming video footage was actually created by McKnight’s camera,

and that the one minute and forty-nine second clip consisted of more than the time

it took McKnight to take photos of the victim’s injuries, the footage was simply an

interview of the victim after the alleged domestic violence incident had concluded.

As argued by the State in its brief, Dodridge was not present at the time the video

was created. Bearing in mind the evidence in the record of Dodridge’s guilt, which

will be more fully discussed under Dodridge’s next assignment of error, we cannot

conclude that there was a reasonable probability that had the evidence been

disclosed to the defense the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Therefore, we conclude the State met its burden of proving that the body cam

video footage, assuming it was even created in the first place, was not materially

exculpatory.

{¶79} Furthermore, in the event the body cam video footage could be

somehow considered potentially useful, there has been no showing of bad faith.

As set forth above, in order to demonstrate bad faith, a defendant must show

something more than bad judgment or negligence, it must demonstrate conscious

wrongdoing or breach of known duty through ill will, such as an actual intent to Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 52

mislead or deceive. See Geeslin and Gerald, supra. Here, the chief of police

testified regarding the department’s policies and procedures. She explained that

data is stored by a third party and that it is automatically destroyed after 180 days

unless it is specifically flagged as evidence. However, through the Chief’s

testimony it was established that had the video footage been requested by the

prosecutor in a timely manner, it would have been able to be retrieved and

provided before it was destroyed.

{¶80} Sergeant McKnight testified that the department policy at the time of

the incident provided that the detectives, not the responding officers, were the ones

to decide what data should be flagged as evidence once a report was filed. If the

data wasn’t specifically flagged, it was destroyed after 180 days by the third party

storage service pursuant to policy. Importantly, Sergeant McKnight testified that

the police department had since changed their procedures with respect to evidence

storage, now requiring each individual officer to download their video footage to a

CD and attach it to each police report that is made. After considering the record

before us, we conclude the above evidence demonstrates negligence on the part of

the State in failing to preserve potentially useful evidence. However, we cannot

conclude that it rises to the level of bad faith.

{¶81} We finally address the trial court’s denial of Dodridge’s oral motion

in limine made the morning of trial. We first note that it is not altogether clear Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 53

from the record what exactly happened regarding the photos taken by Sergeant

McKnight on his body cam and the photos received by him from the victim on his

body cam. The jury trial transcript references a conversation that was had between

the prosecutor and defense counsel just prior to trial regarding the accidental

erasure of some photos. The details surrounding the accidental erasure, or which

photos were involved, are unclear.

{¶82} At the start of trial defense counsel made a motion in limine “to

exclude the photographs in this case.” Counsel stated that “[t]here’s been

testimony about no one is really sure who took what photograph, and the like.”

Counsel referenced a handwritten interoffice communication from Sergeant

McKnight indicating there were some photos that were sent to his personal cell

phone that had been destroyed. Counsel argued that, as a result, the defense did

not “have any idea, as we sit here, or any way to defend, definitively, as to when

these photographs were taken.” Thus, it appears the defense was requesting that all

of the remaining photographs be excluded from evidence because there seemed to

be some additional photos that were taken by the victim and sent to Sergeant

McKnight’s personal phone that were accidentally either erased or destroyed, and

were therefore unavailable at trial.

{¶83} The trial court denied this motion from the bench, referencing the

fact that the remaining photographs were entered into the record during the hearing Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 54

on the motion to compel, as well as the fact that the victim “validated” the photos

and stated she had taken the photos. The trial court ruled that the photos had been

properly authenticated and that the defense would be permitted to cross-examine

the witnesses regarding the photos, or have the option to call witnesses itself as

part of its case-in-chief, if the witnesses were not called by the State.

{¶84} “ ‘The admission or exclusion of evidence generally rests within a

trial court's sound discretion.’ ” State v. Allen, 2022-Ohio-1180, ¶ 21 (4th Dist.),

quoting State v. McCoy, 2020-Ohio-1083, ¶ 20 (4th Dist.). “ ‘Thus, absent an

abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not disturb a trial court's ruling

regarding the admissibility of evidence.’ ” Id., quoting McCoy at ¶ 20. “The

requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to

admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter

in question is what its proponent claims.” Evid.R. 901(A). One way this can be

accomplished is with “[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.”

Evid.R. 901(B).

{¶85} Here, as noted by the trial court, at the time the defense put forth its

motion in limine, the victim had already testified regarding the photos during the

hearing on the motion to compel. She affirmed during the hearing, in response to

questioning by the trial court, that each of the photos sought to be admitted were

photos of her body that were taken on the night of the incident. Thus, the victim Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 55

testified that the photos were what the state claimed they were, photos either taken

by Sergeant McKnight on his body cam, photos taken by herself on her phone, or

photos taken on her phone by her step-daughter, who was present during and after

the incident. The same photos that were admitted into evidence during the hearing

on the motion to compel were the same photos ultimately admitted during the jury

{¶86} For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the trial court did not err or

abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to introduce the photos at trial that

had already been properly made part of the record during the hearing on the motion

to compel. Thus, we find no merit to Dodridge’s sixth assignment of error and it is

therefore overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VII

{¶87} Dodridge contends in his seventh assignment of error that the trial

court erred when it denied his motion for acquittal as to the charge of disrupting

public services. He argues that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that

he purposely by any means interrupted or impaired telephone service on the night

of the incident. The State responds by arguing that the testimony of the victim at

trial established all of the elements of this offense and, therefore, the trial court did

not err in overruling Dodridge’s motion for acquittal.

Standard of Review Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 56

{¶88} A motion for judgment of acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A) challenges

the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Brinkley, 2005-Ohio-1507; ¶ 39, State v.

McMurray, 2015-Ohio-2827, ¶ 37 (12th Dist.). The denial of a motion for

acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A) “is governed by the same standard as the one for

determining whether a verdict is supported by sufficient evidence.” State v.

Tenace, 2006-Ohio-2417, ¶ 37; State v. Johnson, 2016-Ohio-867, ¶ 9 (4th Dist.);

State v. Conley, 2014-Ohio-1699, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.), citing State v. Carter, 72 Ohio

St.3d 545, 553 (1995); State v. Hernandez, 2009-Ohio-5128, ¶ 6 (10th Dist.).

{¶89} Whether sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction is a

question of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). In reviewing

a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, “[t]he relevant inquiry is 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.” (Citations omitted). State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 113

(1997). In making that determination, an appellate court will not weigh evidence

or assess the witnesses’ credibility. State v. Walker, 55 Ohio St.2d 208, 212

(1978). “Rather, we decide whether, if believed, the evidence can sustain the

verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Richardson, 2016-Ohio-8448, ¶ 13.

Therefore, a court must conduct “a review of the elements of the charged offense

and a review of the state's evidence.” Id. “In deciding if the evidence was Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 57

sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor assess the credibility of

witnesses, as both are functions reserved for the trier of fact.” State v. Jones, 2013-

Ohio-4775, ¶ 33 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Williams, 2011-Ohio-6267, ¶ 25 (1st

Dist.); State v. Bennett, 2019-Ohio-4937, ¶ 46 (3d Dist.); State v. Wells, 2022-

Ohio-3793, ¶ 32 (4th Dist.).

{¶90} Here, the jury found Dodridge guilty of one count of disrupting

public services, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2909.04(A)(1), which

provides as follows:

(A) No person, purposely by any means or knowingly by damaging or tampering with any property, shall do any of the following:

(1) Interrupt or impair television, radio, telephone, telegraph, or other mass communications service; police, fire, or other public service communications; radar, loran, radio, or other electronic aids to air or marine navigation or communications; or amateur or citizens band radio communications being used for public service or emergency communications[.]

{¶91} Dodridge argues that his counsel moved for a Crim.R. 29(A) motion

for judgment of acquittal because: 1) the State failed to provide sufficient facts

that the victim took any action to call 911; and 2) because the evidence showed

there was another phone in the house that was available during the incident.

Dodridge now argues that although the evidence in the record shows that he did

have the victim’s phone in his possession for an unknown amount of time, the Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 58

victim did not ask for it to be returned to her, and he left the phone in the house,

undamaged, when he left the house. He also argues that the victim testified that

she had no intention of calling the police that day, and that there was another

phone in the house available for her use at the time.

{¶92} The State contends, on the other hand, that the victim testified that

Dodridge grabbed her phone and keys during the incident, that she wanted to call

the police just so that Dodridge would leave, that she did not have a house phone,

and that she did not have other means to call for help. The State further notes that

during its re-direct examination of the victim, she confirmed that Dodridge had her

phone during the domestic violence incident, that he tried to break her phone, that

he wouldn’t give her the phone, and that she couldn’t call 911.

{¶93} A review of the trial testimony reveals that although the victim was

inconsistent at times regarding whether Dodridge tried to break her phone, whether

there may have been another phone in the house, and whether she had actually

intended to call the police when the incident was occurring, when pressed, the

victim did confirm at trial that Dodridge took her phone while the incident was

occurring, that he tried to break it, and that she didn’t know where her phone was

until she found it after he left the house. She also confirmed on re-direct that she

had wanted to call 911 to get Dodridge to leave, but that he prevented her from

calling. She testified that although her step-daughter might have had a phone with Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 59

her that night, she had not seen another phone that night. Moreover, Dodridge’s

teenage daughter, who was an eyewitness to the events that night, testified that the

victim yelled at her and asked her to call 911, but that she could not because she

didn’t have a phone. She testified that she didn’t have a phone, that there was no

phone in the house, and that she could see that Dodridge had phones in each of his

pockets.

{¶94} The Third District Court of Appeals upheld a conviction for

disrupting public services where the record contained evidence that 1) the

defendant took the victim’s phone as she was “unlocking it” to call law

enforcement; 2) the defendant threw it against the wall; and 3) the victim did not

find the phone until after the incident was over and the defendant had left. State v.

Jackson, 2019-Ohio-170, ¶ 67 (3d Dist.). Further, Dodridge concedes in his brief

that “[e]vidence that an accused took a cellular phone away from the victim in

order to prevent the victim from calling 911 will support a conviction under R.C.

2909.04(A)(1).”

{¶95} After viewing the evidence set forth above in a light most favorable

to the prosecution, we conclude that any rational trier of fact could have found all

of the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.

Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, paragraph two of the syllabus. The jury, as the trier of

fact, could draw inferences and make conclusions based upon the evidence Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 60

adduced at trial. Our review of the record reveals that the evidence adduced at trial

is sufficient to support the claim that Dodridge committed the crime of disrupting

public services because the evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind

of Dodridge’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we find no merit to

Dodridge’s seventh assignment and it is overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VIII

{¶96} In his eighth assignment of error, Dodridge contends that the

cumulative effect of these errors deprived him of a fair trial. He argues that several

errors were made by the trial court and counsel which affected the outcome of his

case. The State disagrees with Dodridge’s argument that several errors were made

at trial and claims that the outcome of the case was not affected the alleged errors.

{¶97} Under the cumulative error doctrine, “a conviction will be reversed

where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the

constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of trial

court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.” State v. Garner, 74

Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995), citing State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (1987),

paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Ruble, 2017-Ohio-7259, ¶ 75 (4th Dist.).

“Before we consider whether ‘cumulative errors’ are present, we must first find

that the trial court committed multiple errors.” State v. Smith, 2016-Ohio-5062, ¶ Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 61

106 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Harrington, 2006-Ohio-4388, ¶ 57 (4th Dist.). The

cumulative error doctrine does not apply where the defendant “cannot point to

‘multiple instances of harmless error.’ ” State v. Mammone, 2014-Ohio-1942, ¶

148 (“And to the extent that Mammone more broadly invokes the doctrine of

cumulative error, that doctrine does not apply because he cannot point to ‘multiple

instances of harmless error.’ ”); State v. Colonel, 2023-Ohio-3945, ¶ 64-66 (4th

Dist.); State v. Fannon, 2018-Ohio-5242, ¶ 124-125 (4th Dist.).

{¶98} Here, we have rejected Dodridge’s argument that the trial court erred

or abused its discretion in declaring the victim to be a hostile witness. We also

rejected his argument that the trial court committed plain error in interrogating the

victim during trial. Although we did find error with respect to the trial court’s

admission of the victim’s prior written statement that was attached to the police

report, we found that error to be harmless. With respect to Dodridge’s arguments

related to the failure to both request and provide a limiting instruction regarding

impeachment evidence, we found no plain error on the part of the trial court and

because Dodridge could not show prejudice, i.e., that the outcome of the trial was

affected by the failure to request a limiting instruction, we rejected his argument

that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finally, we found the State

met its burden of showing that the missing body cam footage was not materially Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 62

exculpatory and although we found the State was negligent in failing to request the

video footage sooner, we found no bad faith on the part of the State related to this

failure.

{¶99} Thus, despite Dodridge’s many challenges on appeal, we have found

only one instance of harmless error. As such, because Dodridge has not pointed to

“multiple instances of harmless error,” we cannot conclude that cumulative errors

violated his constitutional right to a fair trial. Accordingly, we find no merit to the

arguments raised under Dodridge’s eighth and final assignment of error and it is,

therefore, overruled.

{¶100} Having found no merit in any of the arguments raised by Dodridge

on appeal, all eight of his assignments of error are overruled. Accordingly, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Lawrence App. No. 22CA19 63

JUDGMENT ENTRY

It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and costs be assessed to appellant. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Lawrence County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed 60 days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the 60-day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 45-day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of 60 days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Hess, J. and Wilkin, J., concur in Judgment only. For the Court,

_____________________________ Jason P. Smith Presiding Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.