[Cite as State v. Geer, 2022-Ohio-289.]
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- : : NIKKI GEER : Case No. 21-CA-23 : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Municipal Court, Case No. CRB2100276
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 1, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
MITCHELL R. HARDEN ANDREW T. SANDERSON 136 West Main Street 738 East Main Street Lancaster, OH 43130 Lancaster, OH 43130 Fairfield County, Case No. 21-CA-23 2
Wise, Earle, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Nikki Geer appeals the July 21, 2021 judgment of
conviction and sentence of the Fairfield County Municipal Court. Plaintiff-Appellee is the
State of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On March 12, 2021, Lancaster Police Officer A.T. Bennett responded to a
call on Sherman Avenue involving a fight. Upon arrival he encountered appellant walking
away from the back yard of the residence in question. He stopped appellant who stated
he heard arguing and shouting while at the residence. Appellant then provided his
brother's information instead of his own because appellant had an active warrant for his
arrest. Appellant was subsequently charged with falsification.
{¶ 3} Appellant pled not guilty to the charge and elected to proceed to a bench
trial. Appellant stipulated to every element of falsification except for whether or not
Bennett's investigation of appellant was part of Bennett's "official function" as a police
officer. Transcript of trial 4-5.
{¶ 4} The state presented evidence from Officer Bennett and appellant testified
on his own behalf. After hearing all the evidence, the trial court found appellant guilty.
Appellant filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for consideration. He
raises one assignment of error for our consideration as follows:
I Fairfield County, Case No. 21-CA-23 3
{¶ 5} "THE CONVICTION OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS OBTAINED
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEING PRESENTED TO ESTABLISH EACH AND
EVERY ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE IN QUESTION."
{¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues the state failed to produce
sufficient evidence to prove Bennett was performing his official function when appellant
made his false statement. We disagree.
{¶ 7} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State
v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). "The 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." Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
{¶ 8} Appellant was charged with falsification pursuant to R.C. 2921.13 (A)(3)
which provides:
(A) No person shall knowingly make a false statement, or knowingly
swear or affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when
any of the following applies:
***
(3) The statement is made with purpose to mislead a public official in
performing the public official's official function. Fairfield County, Case No. 21-CA-23 4
{¶ 9} As he did at trial, appellant concedes he made a false statement to a police
officer on March 12, 2021 in Fairfield County, Ohio. He argues, however, that his
statement was not made to a public official who was performing "the public official's
function."
{¶ 10} "Public official" is defined in R.C. 2921.01:
As used in sections 2921.01 to 2921.45 of the Revised Code:
(A) “Public official” means any elected or appointed officer, or
employee, or agent of the state or any political subdivision, whether
in a temporary or permanent capacity, and includes, but is not limited
to, legislators, judges, and law enforcement officers. * * *
{¶ 11} The term "official function" is not defined in the Revised Code. However, the
committee notes to R.C. 2921.13(A)(3) provide examples which include false statements
made to "mislead policemen." Appellant argues because he was not under arrest or
investigation when he provided a false name to Officer Bennett, Bennett was not
performing his "official function."
{¶ 12} In support of his position, appellant relies on State v. Parks, 13 Ohio App.3d
85, 468 N.E.2d 104. Parks involved a Capital University student who attempted to obtain
an Ohio State University student identification card where he was not a student, using his
brother's information. In reaching its conclusion that Parks did not commit a violation of
R.C. 2921.13(A)(3) the court noted "while we have great respect for tasks performed by
the numerous clerical staffs of the various state agencies and offices, to say that each is Fairfield County, Case No. 21-CA-23 5
a “public official” performing “official functions” for the purposes of R.C. 2921.13(A)(3)
would be to stretch the reach of that statute beyond logic and reason." Because the clerk
issuing the identification card "had no discretionary powers or any indicia of
independence" the court reversed Parks' conviction. Id., 87.
{¶ 13} Park turned on the fact that the court found the clerk Park made a false
statement to was not a "public official" within the meaning of the statute. This matter is
distinguishable from Park in that police officers are without question, public officials. We
therefore find Park is inapplicable to the instant matter.
{¶ 14} We further find the investigation of crimes is most certainly an "official
function" of police officers. The investigation of crimes necessarily includes gathering
accurate information regarding all individuals involved in an incident, both potential
defendants and potential witnesses.
{¶ 15} In State v. Lazzaro, 76 Ohio St.3d 261, 1996-Ohio-397, 667 N.E.2d 384,
the Supreme Court of Ohio was presented with the question of whether the making of an
unsworn false oral statement to a public official with the purpose to mislead, hamper or
impede the investigation of a crime is punishable conduct within the meaning of R.C.
2921.13(A)(3). Lazzarro was the administrator of a nursing home who lied to police
officers about an incident of elder abuse committed by two of her employees. When the
truth came to light, Lazzarro was charged with several crimes including falsification
pursuant to R.C. 2921.13(A)(3). Like appellant here, Lazzaro was not herself initially
under investigation, but rather was a potential witness. The court in that matter found: Fairfield County, Case No. 21-CA-23 6
The General Assembly has adopted legislation intended to
discourage individuals from purposely giving false information that
hinders public officials in the performance of their duties. Complete
and honest cooperation with the law enforcement process by all
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Geer, 2022-Ohio-289.]
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- : : NIKKI GEER : Case No. 21-CA-23 : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Municipal Court, Case No. CRB2100276
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 1, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
MITCHELL R. HARDEN ANDREW T. SANDERSON 136 West Main Street 738 East Main Street Lancaster, OH 43130 Lancaster, OH 43130 Fairfield County, Case No. 21-CA-23 2
Wise, Earle, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Nikki Geer appeals the July 21, 2021 judgment of
conviction and sentence of the Fairfield County Municipal Court. Plaintiff-Appellee is the
State of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On March 12, 2021, Lancaster Police Officer A.T. Bennett responded to a
call on Sherman Avenue involving a fight. Upon arrival he encountered appellant walking
away from the back yard of the residence in question. He stopped appellant who stated
he heard arguing and shouting while at the residence. Appellant then provided his
brother's information instead of his own because appellant had an active warrant for his
arrest. Appellant was subsequently charged with falsification.
{¶ 3} Appellant pled not guilty to the charge and elected to proceed to a bench
trial. Appellant stipulated to every element of falsification except for whether or not
Bennett's investigation of appellant was part of Bennett's "official function" as a police
officer. Transcript of trial 4-5.
{¶ 4} The state presented evidence from Officer Bennett and appellant testified
on his own behalf. After hearing all the evidence, the trial court found appellant guilty.
Appellant filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for consideration. He
raises one assignment of error for our consideration as follows:
I Fairfield County, Case No. 21-CA-23 3
{¶ 5} "THE CONVICTION OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS OBTAINED
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEING PRESENTED TO ESTABLISH EACH AND
EVERY ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE IN QUESTION."
{¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues the state failed to produce
sufficient evidence to prove Bennett was performing his official function when appellant
made his false statement. We disagree.
{¶ 7} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State
v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). "The 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." Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
{¶ 8} Appellant was charged with falsification pursuant to R.C. 2921.13 (A)(3)
which provides:
(A) No person shall knowingly make a false statement, or knowingly
swear or affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when
any of the following applies:
***
(3) The statement is made with purpose to mislead a public official in
performing the public official's official function. Fairfield County, Case No. 21-CA-23 4
{¶ 9} As he did at trial, appellant concedes he made a false statement to a police
officer on March 12, 2021 in Fairfield County, Ohio. He argues, however, that his
statement was not made to a public official who was performing "the public official's
function."
{¶ 10} "Public official" is defined in R.C. 2921.01:
As used in sections 2921.01 to 2921.45 of the Revised Code:
(A) “Public official” means any elected or appointed officer, or
employee, or agent of the state or any political subdivision, whether
in a temporary or permanent capacity, and includes, but is not limited
to, legislators, judges, and law enforcement officers. * * *
{¶ 11} The term "official function" is not defined in the Revised Code. However, the
committee notes to R.C. 2921.13(A)(3) provide examples which include false statements
made to "mislead policemen." Appellant argues because he was not under arrest or
investigation when he provided a false name to Officer Bennett, Bennett was not
performing his "official function."
{¶ 12} In support of his position, appellant relies on State v. Parks, 13 Ohio App.3d
85, 468 N.E.2d 104. Parks involved a Capital University student who attempted to obtain
an Ohio State University student identification card where he was not a student, using his
brother's information. In reaching its conclusion that Parks did not commit a violation of
R.C. 2921.13(A)(3) the court noted "while we have great respect for tasks performed by
the numerous clerical staffs of the various state agencies and offices, to say that each is Fairfield County, Case No. 21-CA-23 5
a “public official” performing “official functions” for the purposes of R.C. 2921.13(A)(3)
would be to stretch the reach of that statute beyond logic and reason." Because the clerk
issuing the identification card "had no discretionary powers or any indicia of
independence" the court reversed Parks' conviction. Id., 87.
{¶ 13} Park turned on the fact that the court found the clerk Park made a false
statement to was not a "public official" within the meaning of the statute. This matter is
distinguishable from Park in that police officers are without question, public officials. We
therefore find Park is inapplicable to the instant matter.
{¶ 14} We further find the investigation of crimes is most certainly an "official
function" of police officers. The investigation of crimes necessarily includes gathering
accurate information regarding all individuals involved in an incident, both potential
defendants and potential witnesses.
{¶ 15} In State v. Lazzaro, 76 Ohio St.3d 261, 1996-Ohio-397, 667 N.E.2d 384,
the Supreme Court of Ohio was presented with the question of whether the making of an
unsworn false oral statement to a public official with the purpose to mislead, hamper or
impede the investigation of a crime is punishable conduct within the meaning of R.C.
2921.13(A)(3). Lazzarro was the administrator of a nursing home who lied to police
officers about an incident of elder abuse committed by two of her employees. When the
truth came to light, Lazzarro was charged with several crimes including falsification
pursuant to R.C. 2921.13(A)(3). Like appellant here, Lazzaro was not herself initially
under investigation, but rather was a potential witness. The court in that matter found: Fairfield County, Case No. 21-CA-23 6
The General Assembly has adopted legislation intended to
discourage individuals from purposely giving false information that
hinders public officials in the performance of their duties. Complete
and honest cooperation with the law enforcement process by all
citizens is essential to the effective operation of the justice system.
Columbus v. New (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 221, 227, 1 OBR 244, 249,
438 N.E.2d 1155, 1160. Therefore, we hold that the making of an
unsworn false oral statement to a public official with the purpose to
mislead, hamper or impede the investigation of a crime is punishable
conduct within the meaning of R.C. 2921.13(A)(3) and 2921.31(A).
{¶ 16} Appellant here admits he purposely made a false statement. His statement
was unquestionably made to a public official. While he argues Officer Barrett was not
performing his "official function" because he was not the one under investigation and his
identity was of no consequence to Barrett, Barrett could not have known who was involved
and who was not until his investigation was complete.
{¶ 17} We conclude the state produced sufficient evidence to prove Barrett was a
public official performing his official function when appellant lied to Barrett about his
identity.
{¶ 18} The sole assignment of error is overruled. Fairfield County, Case No. 21-CA-23 7
{¶ 19} The judgment of the Fairfield County Municipal Court if affirmed.
By Wise, Earle, P.J.
Hoffman, J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
EEW/rw