State v. Flantoill

2024 Ohio 5224

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 1, 2024
• Docket: C-240120
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Flantoill, 2024-Ohio-5224.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240120 TRIAL NO. 22/CRB/1729 Plaintiff-Appellant, :

vs. : OPINION BRANDY FLANTOILL, :

Defendant-Appellee. :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 1, 2024

Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph Cossins, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellant,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and David Hoffman, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellee. BERGERON, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} After an argument grew heated, police were summoned to a residence

where a wife was allegedly holding her husband at gunpoint. Upon further

investigation and a struggle with police, the wife, defendant-appellee Brandy Flantoill,

was arrested and charged with resisting arrest, along with two ancillary charges related

to the confrontation with her husband. The husband—the lone prosecuting witness—

refused to participate in her prosecution related to the altercation, resulting in the

dismissal of the two ancillary charges. Those dismissals prompted the wife to move

for dismissal of the final charge of resisting arrest due to the State’s lack of evidence

(assuming the exclusion of evidence related to the husband’s allegations). The trial

court granted the motion, but it did so seemingly on the merits after reviewing the

body-worn camera footage of the arrest. The State accordingly appeals, presenting

one assignment of error arguing that the trial court improperly weighed each party’s

respective evidence in ruling on the motion to dismiss. After reviewing the record, we

ultimately agree. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand

this cause for further proceedings.

I.

{¶2} In February 2022, the victim, H.B., initially called 9-1-1 reporting an

argument between he and his wife, Ms. Flantoill, in their residence over the

whereabouts of some of her belongings. He subsequently reported that Ms. Flantoill

obtained his firearm and threatened him with it. During the call, however, H.B. shared

that the firearm had not been removed from the holster and that he did not believe

that Ms. Flantoill even knew how to do so. Not to be outdone, Ms. Flantoill also called

9-1-1, ostensibly to diffuse the situation by explaining her side of the story.

{¶3} Prompted by these calls, several officers arrived at the residence under OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the impression that H.B. was being held at gunpoint by his wife. While the record

remains unclear as to exactly how many officers arrived on the scene, one officer

recalled approximately eight responding officers. When they arrived, they first

encountered H.B. and his dog in the stairwell of the residence building, where they

began discussing the events that took place that precipitated the 9-1-1 call. H.B. later

asserted that he never told the officers that he feared his wife or feared that she might

utilize the firearm against him. He also made sure that the officers knew that Ms.

Flantoill had not removed the firearm from its holster and that he did not believe she

knew how to do so.

{¶4} Despite H.B.’s relative calm demeanor at the scene, the officers still

understandably treated the situation as serious due to the alleged involvement of a

firearm. The officers then demanded that Ms. Flantoill open the door to the couple’s

residence because police protocol required that she be detained at least until the

officers could finish their on-site investigation. She responded that she was

attempting to secure the barking dogs inside the residence before she opened the door.

But she took too long, so the officers attempted to open the door themselves and when

they could not do so, they threatened to break down the door. Ms. Flantoill

immediately threw open the door, only to witness various officers pointing their

firearms at her. At that point, she only wore an untied bathrobe with a t-shirt and

underwear underneath.

{¶5} Per protocol, the officers immediately attempted to place her in

handcuffs. This is where the individual accounts of the story diverge. Ms. Flantoill

alleges that she was immediately restrained, placed in handcuffs, and taken to the

ground by the eight officers, all while she pleaded with them to stop because they were

hurting her. But the officers maintained in the complaint that she refused their

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

instructions to put her hands behind her back several times, prompting officers to “go

hands on with” her while she continued to resist.

{¶6} Based on the events that occurred, Ms. Flantoill was charged with

resisting arrest under R.C. 2921.33(A), domestic violence under R.C. 2912.25(C), and

aggravated menacing under R.C. 2903.21. However, as mentioned above, after H.B.

refused to participate in the prosecution of the case, the trial court dismissed the latter

two charges for want of prosecution. That left only the resisting arrest charge

remaining, and that is where the issues for this appeal began.

{¶7} After the dismissal of the two other charges, Ms. Flantoill moved to

dismiss her third and final charge of resisting arrest, maintaining that any statements

made by H.B. constituted inadmissible hearsay (based on his refusal to testify) and

any offer of those statements into evidence would otherwise violate her constitutional

right to confront witnesses against her. She alternatively argued that H.B.’s

statements were unduly prejudicial and represented inadmissible “other acts”

evidence. Ultimately, Ms. Flantoill concluded that if the trial court held that H.B.’s

statements were inadmissible, the State would be unable to meet their burden of proof

for the elements of resisting arrest.

{¶8} The trial court convened a hearing on the matter, giving both parties the

opportunity to present their arguments. However, after taking the issue under

advisement, the trial court dismissed the charge, but not for any of the reasons

advanced by Ms. Flantoill. After reviewing the body-worn camera footage from the

arrest, the trial court determined that she was not resisting arrest when a slew of

officers surrounded her outside her residence. Instead, the judge concluded, she

simply desired to close her robe in order to refrain from exposing herself once her

hands were behind her back, as any woman in society would want to do. Importantly,

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

in light of that conclusion, the trial court held that the State failed to carry its burden

as it pertained to the elements of the offense, and it dismissed the charge under

Crim.R. 48(B), which gives the court power to dismiss a complaint over the State’s

objections.

{¶9} The State now appeals the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Flantoill’s

charge of resisting arrest, asserting one assignment of error. The State argues that the

trial court committed plain error when it dismissed the charge because it peered

beyond the allegations in the complaint and began weighing the evidence, an act

reserved for trial. We agree with the State’s argument, and accordingly, we reverse the

trial court’s dismissal and remand this cause for further proceedings.

II.

{¶10} Typically, appellate courts review a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint

under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Troisi, 2022-Ohio-3582, ¶ 17, citing

State v. Keenan, 2015-Ohio-2484, ¶ 7. However, if the appellant fails to raise an

objection on an issue that they subsequently appeal, “Crim.R. 52(B) provides a

mechanism by which parties may obtain review of ‘plain errors’ that affected

‘substantial rights’ even where they failed to object . . . .” State v. Shahin, 2024-Ohio-

456, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.).

{¶11} Here, the State failed to object to the charge’s dismissal (although, in

the State’s defense, the trial court dismissed this action on grounds not requested by

the defendant). Therefore, we will review this issue for plain error. In order to satisfy

the plain error standard, the appellant must show (1) there was an error (a deviation

from the legal rule), (2) the error must be obvious under current law, and (3) in order

to affect substantial rights as required, “the trial court’s error must have affected the

outcome of the trial.” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); see Shahin at ¶ 7,

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

citing State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245, 263 (2001) (“‘Plain error’ exists only when

it is clear that the result would have been otherwise but for the error.”); see also State

v. Smith, 2019-Ohio-5264, ¶ 33 (1st Dist.).

{¶12} In deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to dismiss under Crim.R.

48(B), the trial court may only look at the “‘legal sufficiency of the indictment without

regard to the quantity or quality of evidence that may be produced by either [party].’”

State v. Cunningham, 2024-Ohio-2032, ¶ 52 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Parr, 2019-

Ohio-4011, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.); see State v. Patterson, 63 Ohio App.3d 91, 95 (2d Dist.

1989). The real inquiry concerns whether the indictment is valid on its face, and courts

have upheld a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss when the indictment clearly

alleged acts that fulfilled each element of the crime charged. See id. at ¶ 53; see also

State v. Sanchez, 2023-Ohio-1436, ¶ 21 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Egler, 2008-Ohio-

4053, ¶ 14 (3d Dist.). Trial courts may not grant a pretrial motion to dismiss when it

“requires an examination of evidence.” Sanchez at ¶ 23, citing State v. Varner, 81 Ohio

App.3d 85 (9th Dist. 1991); see also State v. Nihiser, 2004-Ohio-4067, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.)

(holding that defendant’s motion to dismiss required the trial court to “consider

evidence and testimony” regarding each party’s position and the weight and

sufficiency of that evidence, rather than the sufficiency of the allegations in the

complaint, which the trial court should not undertake pretrial).

{¶13} Here, the complaint filed by the State alleged that Ms. Flantoill was

asked repeatedly to put her hands behind her back, she refused, the officers had to “go

hands on,” and she still resisted. Under R.C. 2921.33(A), “[n]o person, recklessly or

by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another.” The

allegations of the complaint, if true, readily satisfy the elements of the offense.

{¶14} However, as the trial court admitted in its oral decision, it looked

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

beyond the complaint and reviewed the body-worn camera footage of the arrest. It

found that Ms. Flantoill only desired to cover herself up so as to avoid exposure. In

doing so, the trial court considered each side’s evidence and began evaluating the

strength of that evidence. It found that the idea that Ms. Flantoill simply wanted to

cover herself more credible than the State’s contention that she resisted arrest.1 This

almost strikes us as a summary-judgment-type analysis that has no home in the

criminal motion to dismiss standard under Crim.R. 48(B). Therefore, the first two

prongs of the plain error analysis are met.

{¶15} Lastly, “‘[t]he state has substantial rights to have a criminal trial

conducted according to proper procedure as established by the Criminal Rules, the

United States Constitution, and Ohio Constitution, and applicable provisions of the

Ohio Revised Code.’” State v. Lindsey, 2009-Ohio-4124, ¶ 27 (2d Dist.), quoting State

v. Richter, 92 Ohio App.3d 395, 399 (6th Dist. 1993). When the trial court here

dismissed Ms. Flantoill’s charge of resisting arrest, it directly deprived the State of the

ability to have a trial on the matter. Therefore, the trial court’s decision affected the

State’s substantial rights in a manner that impacted the outcome of the proceedings.

{¶16} For those reasons, we sustain the State’s sole assignment of error.

III.

{¶17} Based on the foregoing analysis, we reverse the judgment of the trial

court and remand this cause for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

CROUSE and WINKLER, JJ., concur.

1 To be clear, we take no position on the ultimate merits of the dispute, as that is reserved for the

finder of fact.

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Please note:

The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.