[Cite as State v. Gerdes, 2019-Ohio-913.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO/CITY OF HAMILTON, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2018-03-056
: OPINION - vs - 3/18/2019 :
ANNE M. GERDES, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT Case No. 17CRB04234
Thomas A. Dierling, Hamilton City Prosecutor, 345 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio, 45011, for appellee
Herdman, Summers, Revelson & Cesta, LLP, Joseph A. Cesta, 1160 East Main Street, P.O. Box 36, Lebanon, Ohio, 45036, for appellant
RINGLAND, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Anne Gerdes, appeals her conviction in the Hamilton Municipal Court
for domestic violence. For the reasons discussed below, this court affirms Gerdes'
conviction.
{¶ 2} Gerdes and her husband, Martin, were having marital difficulties. One evening,
Gerdes was sleeping in the bedroom that she shared with Martin. Because their marital Butler CA2018-03-056
problems had recently escalated, Gerdes locked the door while she slept. Although Martin
knew that Gerdes was asleep and that their bedroom door was locked, he used a screwdriver
to unlock the door and retrieve a blanket for the couple's son. While getting the blanket,
Martin noticed his alarm clock was unplugged. Because Martin intended to sleep in the bed
with Gerdes and needed to set an alarm for the following morning, Martin reached over the
bed's headboard to plug in the alarm clock. At that time, an altercation ensued between
Martin and Gerdes. Eventually, Martin left the bedroom and called the police. The
responding officer arrived at the couple's home and spoke with Gerdes and Martin.
{¶ 3} As a result, Gerdes was arrested and charged with one count of domestic
violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. The matter
proceeded to a jury trial. During trial, the state presented testimony from Martin. Gerdes
testified in her own defense and presented testimony from the responding officer. After
considering the evidence presented, the jury found Gerdes guilty of domestic violence.
Gerdes now appeals, raising two assignments of error. For the ease of analysis, we address
the assignments of error collectively.
{¶ 4} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 5} THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS [sic] ERRED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED AT TRIAL IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT OF
GUILTY.
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 7} THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS [sic] ERRED BECAUSE A VERDICT OF
GUILTY IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT
TRIAL.
{¶ 8} Gerdes challenges the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence supporting
her conviction. Gerdes argues that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that her -2- Butler CA2018-03-056
actions resulted in sufficient physical harm to Martin. Gerdes further contends that her
conviction was not supported by the weight of the evidence because Martin suffered no
physical harm or injury, and any physical contact by Gerdes was an act of self-defense.
{¶ 9} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a criminal conviction,
an appellate court examines the evidence in order to determine whether such evidence, if
believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. State v. Paul, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2011-10-026, 2012-Ohio-3205, ¶ 9.
Therefore, "[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." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991),
paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 10} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge, on the other hand, examines the
"inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side
of the issue rather than the other." State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177,
2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14. To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of
the evidence, the reviewing court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in
resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a
manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.
State v. Graham, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-07-095, 2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66. "While
appellate review includes the responsibility to consider the credibility of witnesses and weight
given to the evidence, 'these issues are primarily matters for the [jury] to decide.'" State v.
Barnes, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010-06-009, 2011-Ohio-5226, ¶ 81, quoting State v.
Walker, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-04-085, 2007-Ohio-911, ¶ 26.
-3- Butler CA2018-03-056
{¶ 11} An appellate court, therefore, will overturn a conviction due to the manifest
weight of the evidence only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at
trial weighs heavily in favor of acquittal. Id., citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
387 (1997). Furthermore, "[a] determination that a conviction is supported by the manifest
weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency." State v. Jones,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-03-049, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 19.
{¶ 12} Gerdes was convicted of domestic violence. Pursuant to R.C. 2919.25(A), "No
person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household
member." Physical harm means "any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment
regardless of its gravity or duration." R.C. 2901.01(A)(3). In general, "a defendant may be
found guilty of domestic violence even if the victim sustains only minor injuries, or sustains no
injury at all." State v. Kellum, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-03-081, 2009-Ohio-6743, ¶ 16.
Accordingly, any harm is sufficient to support a conviction for domestic violence as long as
the "state presents evidence that the offender caused physical harm to the victim through
[her] actions." Id. The gravity or duration of the injury is not a factor for consideration. Id. at
¶ 15.
{¶ 13} Martin testified at trial regarding the altercation between himself and Gerdes.
According to Martin's testimony, when he entered the bedroom to find their son's blanket,
Gerdes began screaming at him. At that time, he retrieved the blanket and noticed that his
alarm clock was unplugged. While Martin was reaching over the bed's headboard to plug in
the alarm clock, Gerdes hit him in the face with a pillow. After being struck with the pillow,
Martin told Gerdes to stop and proceeded to reach behind the headboard to plug in his alarm
clock. While he was reaching behind the headboard the second time, Martin testified Gerdes
kicked him in his side and continued yelling at him. Gerdes then grabbed the headboard and
-4- Butler CA2018-03-056
began pushing and pulling, crushing Martin's arm between the headboard and the wall.
Martin testified he "kept telling [Gerdes] stop * * * you're crushing my arm, just stop."
{¶ 14} After pushing the headboard six or seven times, Gerdes stopped and Martin
successfully plugged in his alarm clock.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Gerdes, 2019-Ohio-913.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO/CITY OF HAMILTON, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2018-03-056
: OPINION - vs - 3/18/2019 :
ANNE M. GERDES, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT Case No. 17CRB04234
Thomas A. Dierling, Hamilton City Prosecutor, 345 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio, 45011, for appellee
Herdman, Summers, Revelson & Cesta, LLP, Joseph A. Cesta, 1160 East Main Street, P.O. Box 36, Lebanon, Ohio, 45036, for appellant
RINGLAND, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Anne Gerdes, appeals her conviction in the Hamilton Municipal Court
for domestic violence. For the reasons discussed below, this court affirms Gerdes'
conviction.
{¶ 2} Gerdes and her husband, Martin, were having marital difficulties. One evening,
Gerdes was sleeping in the bedroom that she shared with Martin. Because their marital Butler CA2018-03-056
problems had recently escalated, Gerdes locked the door while she slept. Although Martin
knew that Gerdes was asleep and that their bedroom door was locked, he used a screwdriver
to unlock the door and retrieve a blanket for the couple's son. While getting the blanket,
Martin noticed his alarm clock was unplugged. Because Martin intended to sleep in the bed
with Gerdes and needed to set an alarm for the following morning, Martin reached over the
bed's headboard to plug in the alarm clock. At that time, an altercation ensued between
Martin and Gerdes. Eventually, Martin left the bedroom and called the police. The
responding officer arrived at the couple's home and spoke with Gerdes and Martin.
{¶ 3} As a result, Gerdes was arrested and charged with one count of domestic
violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. The matter
proceeded to a jury trial. During trial, the state presented testimony from Martin. Gerdes
testified in her own defense and presented testimony from the responding officer. After
considering the evidence presented, the jury found Gerdes guilty of domestic violence.
Gerdes now appeals, raising two assignments of error. For the ease of analysis, we address
the assignments of error collectively.
{¶ 4} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 5} THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS [sic] ERRED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED AT TRIAL IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT OF
GUILTY.
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 7} THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS [sic] ERRED BECAUSE A VERDICT OF
GUILTY IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT
TRIAL.
{¶ 8} Gerdes challenges the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence supporting
her conviction. Gerdes argues that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that her -2- Butler CA2018-03-056
actions resulted in sufficient physical harm to Martin. Gerdes further contends that her
conviction was not supported by the weight of the evidence because Martin suffered no
physical harm or injury, and any physical contact by Gerdes was an act of self-defense.
{¶ 9} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a criminal conviction,
an appellate court examines the evidence in order to determine whether such evidence, if
believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. State v. Paul, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2011-10-026, 2012-Ohio-3205, ¶ 9.
Therefore, "[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." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991),
paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 10} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge, on the other hand, examines the
"inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side
of the issue rather than the other." State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177,
2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14. To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of
the evidence, the reviewing court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in
resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a
manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.
State v. Graham, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-07-095, 2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66. "While
appellate review includes the responsibility to consider the credibility of witnesses and weight
given to the evidence, 'these issues are primarily matters for the [jury] to decide.'" State v.
Barnes, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010-06-009, 2011-Ohio-5226, ¶ 81, quoting State v.
Walker, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-04-085, 2007-Ohio-911, ¶ 26.
-3- Butler CA2018-03-056
{¶ 11} An appellate court, therefore, will overturn a conviction due to the manifest
weight of the evidence only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at
trial weighs heavily in favor of acquittal. Id., citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
387 (1997). Furthermore, "[a] determination that a conviction is supported by the manifest
weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency." State v. Jones,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-03-049, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 19.
{¶ 12} Gerdes was convicted of domestic violence. Pursuant to R.C. 2919.25(A), "No
person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household
member." Physical harm means "any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment
regardless of its gravity or duration." R.C. 2901.01(A)(3). In general, "a defendant may be
found guilty of domestic violence even if the victim sustains only minor injuries, or sustains no
injury at all." State v. Kellum, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-03-081, 2009-Ohio-6743, ¶ 16.
Accordingly, any harm is sufficient to support a conviction for domestic violence as long as
the "state presents evidence that the offender caused physical harm to the victim through
[her] actions." Id. The gravity or duration of the injury is not a factor for consideration. Id. at
¶ 15.
{¶ 13} Martin testified at trial regarding the altercation between himself and Gerdes.
According to Martin's testimony, when he entered the bedroom to find their son's blanket,
Gerdes began screaming at him. At that time, he retrieved the blanket and noticed that his
alarm clock was unplugged. While Martin was reaching over the bed's headboard to plug in
the alarm clock, Gerdes hit him in the face with a pillow. After being struck with the pillow,
Martin told Gerdes to stop and proceeded to reach behind the headboard to plug in his alarm
clock. While he was reaching behind the headboard the second time, Martin testified Gerdes
kicked him in his side and continued yelling at him. Gerdes then grabbed the headboard and
-4- Butler CA2018-03-056
began pushing and pulling, crushing Martin's arm between the headboard and the wall.
Martin testified he "kept telling [Gerdes] stop * * * you're crushing my arm, just stop."
{¶ 14} After pushing the headboard six or seven times, Gerdes stopped and Martin
successfully plugged in his alarm clock. Martin then briefly left the bedroom to get blankets
for himself. When he returned to the room and got into bed, Gerdes started kicking Martin in
the side and yelling at him to leave.
{¶ 15} According to Martin's testimony, Gerdes hit him in the face with a pillow, kicked
him in the side seven or nine times, and smashed his arm between the headboard and the
wall six or seven times. Martin further indicated that although he did not sustain any
outwardly observable injury because of the incident or notice any injuries that evening, his
elbow and side were sore the following day.
{¶ 16} Gerdes testified in her own defense and offered an alternate version of the
altercation. Notably, Gerdes denied hitting Martin in the face with the pillow, using the
headboard to smash Martin's arm, and kicking Martin. According to Gerdes, she locked the
bedroom door and went to sleep because she "was afraid of what [Martin] was going to do"
and "could tell something was brewing." Martin later entered the room and began "shuffling
around" and "shoving in the bed next to" her. At that time, Gerdes asked Martin to "be a
gentleman and sleep on the couch" and to "get out, get out, get out, get out[.]" Gerdes
indicated Martin continued shoving himself into the bed but ultimately gave up because
Gerdes reached her foot over to "hold and to anchor [Martin]" and he "couldn't out-shove
[her]."
{¶ 17} After a thorough review of the record, we find Gerdes' conviction was not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. The state presented evidence that, if believed,
established Gerdes caused or attempted to cause Martin physical harm by hitting him with
the pillow, crushing his arm with the headboard, and kicking him. Additionally, Martin testified -5- Butler CA2018-03-056
that he felt sore the day after the incident, which we find is indicative of an injury, regardless
of its gravity. As such, Martin's testimony supported all elements of the crime of domestic
violence, and "a conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because
the jury believed the prosecution testimony." State v. Erickson, 12th Dist. Warren No.
CA2014-10-131, 2015-Ohio-2086, ¶ 42. It is apparent that the jury found the testimony of
Martin to be more credible than that of Gerdes. "The credibility of the witnesses is
paramount in cases such as this where the evidence amounts to little more than a matter of
'he said, she said.'" State v. Chasteen, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-12-223, 2014-Ohio-
4622, ¶14. Here, we do not find that the trial court clearly lost its way and created a manifest
miscarriage of justice when it found Martin more credible than Gerdes and convicted Gerdes
of domestic violence.
{¶ 18} Because Gerdes' conviction for domestic violence is not against the manifest
weight of the evidence, it is also supported by sufficient evidence. Therefore, Gerdes' two
assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 19} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
-6-