State v. Giannini

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 22, 2026
• Docket: E-25-026
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Giannini, 2026-Ohio-1888.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. E-25-026

Appellee Trial Court No. CRB-25-00062

v.

Christopher A. Giannini DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: May 22, 2026

***** Kevin J. Baxter, Esq., Prosecutor and Kristin R. Palmer, Esq., Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.

Karin, L. Coble, Esq., for appellant.

***** SULEK, J.,

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Christopher Giannini, appeals a judgment of the Erie

County Municipal Court which, following a jury trial finding him guilty of assault,

sentenced him to a 90-day jail sentence, 88 days suspended, and a $500 fine. Because the conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of

the evidence, it is affirmed.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On April 7, 2025, the State filed a complaint charging Giannini with one

count each of domestic violence and assault, first degree misdemeanors. The charges

stemmed from an incident on April 6, 2025, where Giannini forcefully shoved past S.F,1

a household member, while exiting the house. S.F. sustained an abrasion and contusion.

{¶ 3} Giannini pleaded not guilty to the charges. On June 25, 2025, the State

moved to dismiss the domestic violence count; the court dismissed the count without

prejudice. The matter proceeded to a jury trial where the parties presented the following

relevant evidence.

{¶ 4} Erie County Sheriff’s Sergeant Brett Szakats testified that on April 6, 2025,

he and Deputy Opfer were dispatched to a residence where the 911 caller’s father was not

allowing her into the residence. They responded to the home in Milan Township, Erie

County, Ohio, and spoke with S.F. who was standing by her vehicle in the driveway. She

indicated that she was permanently vacating the residence and wished to enter to collect

her remaining belongings.

{¶ 5} Sergeant Szakats wore and operated his body worn camera (BWC) during

the incident; the recording was played for the jury and admitted into evidence. The State

1 The transcript and parties refer to the victim as C.F.; however, the trial exhibits include her signature and evidence that S.F. is the correct spelling.

2. presented Szakats with a document Giannini is seen handing him in the video. The

document was an agreed judgment entry, dated January 17, 2025, dismissing a civil

protection action instituted by Giannini and giving S.F. 90 days to move out of the

residence. The document was admitted into evidence.

{¶ 6} Sergeant Szakats explained that S.F. was adamant about obtaining the rest of

her items that day. At one point, S.F. retrieved a baseball bat from her vehicle and stated

her intent to use it to gain access to the residence. She ultimately gained entry through a

basement window.

{¶ 7} Minutes later the BWC recording shows S.F. on the walkway connecting the

driveway and the front porch trying to catch three loose dogs. S.F. walked back up to the

open doorway calling the dogs. Giannini then appears behind her, runs into the back of

her forcing her off the porch. Szakats stated that Giannini ran into “[S.F.] with enough

force to at least knock her over and made her off-balance” and she sustained an injury.

Giannini then ran up to the officers in the front yard and they placed him under arrest.

He stated: “I just pushed her.” S.F. informed Sergeant Szakats that she hit the doorframe

and he observed redness and bruising to S.F.’s left shoulder blade area.

{¶ 8} During cross-examination, Sergeant Szakats agreed that S.F. refused

medical treatment and that the injury could have been sustained earlier while moving her

belongings. He acknowledged that initially, only one dog was outside and that S.F.

stepped aside with the door open and two more dogs ran out. He asked S.F. to come get

the dogs and she made no real effort to comply.

3. {¶ 9} S.F. testified that for the past 12 to 13 years, Giannini was like a foster father

to her and she lived in his home off and on for several years. On April 6, 2025, after S.F.

called 911, she waited in her car for the police. Two officers arrived and went inside to

talk with Giannini. They returned telling her there was not much they could do because it

was a civil matter. S.F. tried to enter but the doors were locked. She went to her car and

retrieved a baseball bat intending to use it to break a window, if necessary. She entered

the home after breaking a screen on the lower level where her bedroom was located.

{¶ 10} S.F. recorded a video of the incident on her cell phone which she narrated.

After realizing that her dog was loose, she got a bag of Oreos from the pantry and went

on the front porch. She then stated “you hear Chris from behind me and told me to move

and I told him no. And then he shoves me into the side of the house that’s right on the

porch and I dropped some cookies.” The shove caused a red mark which later turned into

a bruise. Two photographs depicting S.F.’s injury were admitted into evidence.

{¶ 11} An indoor security camera recording, admitted into evidence, provided a

rear-facing view of the incident. S.F. again narrated that she was standing in the doorway

calling her dog who was loose in the front yard along with Giannini’s two dogs. Giannini

came up from behind telling her to get out of the way. S.F. did not have time to move

because she “didn’t expect him to actually charge through [her].”

{¶ 12} During cross-examination, S.F. admitted that on the date of the incident she

smoked marijuana in Giannini’s home which made him upset. She acknowledged that

Giannini obtained a Civil Stalking Protection Order (CSPO) against her and that when

4. deputies initially served the order, they removed her from the house. In January 2025,

she and Giannini reached an agreement where she was given 90 days to vacate Giannini’s

home.

{¶ 13} S.F. admitted that on the day of the incident Giannini’s dogs ran out the

front door after she left it open. She stated that it was not her concern and she only cared

about getting her dog back in the house. S.F. agreed that Giannini twice told her to

move out of the doorway and she refused; she stated she had no intention of moving.

{¶ 14} S.F. had been moving out over the course of several weeks and in March

2025, she damaged a door in the home after slamming it because she was angry.

{¶ 15} At the conclusion of the State’s case, defense counsel moved for a directed

verdict under Crim.R. 29; the court denied the motion.

{¶ 16} Three witnesses testified on Giannini’s behalf. Erie County Sheriff’s

Lieutenant Trevor Harlow testified that on March 8, 2025, he responded to a disturbance

at Giannini’s home. Giannini reported that S.F. was being “turbulent” and slammed and

damaged a door. Giannini appeared discouraged over his living situation.

{¶ 17} Erie County Sheriff’s Deputy Ryan Opfer responded to the April 2025 call

and, like Sergeant Szakats, his BWC recorded the incident. Deputy Opfer reviewed the

CSPO paperwork the Giannini handed him. After leaving the house he observed the dogs

loose in the front yard and Giannini coming out of the doorway. He agreed that prior to

the incident he did not see what, if anything, transpired between Giannini and S.F. inside

the house.

5. {¶ 18} Giannini’s expert, John Majoy, testified that he is the police chief for the

village of Middleburg Heights near Cleveland, Ohio. He was a professor of criminal

justice at Bowling Green State University and is an adjunct professor of criminal justice

at Tiffin University. Majoy previously served as police chief for the city of Huron, Ohio,

and held positions of sergeant, and patrol officer. Majoy also sits on the Ohio Victim’s

Assistant Advisory Board and the Cuyahoga County Domestic Violence Task Force.

{¶ 19} Preparing an expert report, Majoy reviewed the police report from April 6,

the BWC recordings, the home security camera footage, and excerpts from the Erie

County Sheriff’s policy manual. Majoy testified to three screen shots taken from the

security footage depicting S.F. in the open doorway and what he believed was her

attempt, based on her posture, to block Giannini from exiting.

{¶ 20} Majoy felt that “standard police practice” dictated that the responding

deputies mediate the situation instead of remaining hands off. Their statements that they

could not stop S.F. from breaking into the home could have been construed as

encouraging her to do so. He believed that the officers could have peacefully resolved

the situation.

{¶ 21} The State cross-examined Majoy on the photo he thought depicted S.F.

intentionally blocking Giannini’s egress. Three photos were taken over the course of two

seconds. The first two, as Giannini approaches, show S.F.’s arms at her side and her legs

close together, the third shows her right arm lifted and her stance widened. Majoy agreed

that an individual unexpectedly touched from behind would have some sort of a physical

6. reaction. Majoy admitted to a professional relationship with Giannini and that he

supported Majoy’s campaign for sheriff in 2012.

{¶ 22} Giannini rested and the trial court denied his renewed Crim.R. 29 motion

for acquittal. Following deliberations, the jury found Giannini guilty of assault. This

appeal followed.

II. Assignment of Error

{¶ 23} Giannini raises one assignment of error for review:

Assignment of Error One: The verdict was unsupported by sufficient evidence and was therefore a violation of Due Process as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution; the conviction is also against the manifest weight of the evidence.

III. Analysis

{¶ 24} In his sole assignment of error, Giannini argues that jury’s verdict

convicting him of assault was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the

weight of the evidence. Giannini claims that because he was only trying to get past S.F.

to retrieve his dogs, he lacked the requisite knowing intent.

{¶ 25} In determining whether a verdict is supported by sufficient 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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph

two of the syllabus. In making this determination, appellate courts do not weigh the

7. evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. State v. Harris, 2024-Ohio-4722, ¶ 15

(6th Dist.), citing State v. Walker, 55 Ohio St.2d 208, 212 (1978).

{¶ 26} Giannini also argues that his conviction was against the manifest weight of

the evidence. When reviewing a manifest weight claim, “‘[t]he court, reviewing the

entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility

of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury

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. Lang, 2011-Ohio-4215, ¶ 220,

quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). “‘The discretionary power to

grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence

weighs heavily against the conviction.’” Id., quoting Thompkins at 387.

{¶ 27} The jury convicted Giannini of assault, R.C. 2903.13(A), which prohibits a

person from knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm to another. A

person acts knowingly where he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain

result. R.C. 2901.22(B).

The prosecution is not required to show that the defendant intended the end result to prove that he acted “knowingly.” State v. Turner, 2024- Ohio-684, ¶ 90 (2d Dist.); R.C. 2901.22(B). Instead, the prosecution must show that the defendant acted with awareness that the conduct will probably cause such harm. State v. Chambers, 2024-Ohio-3341, ¶ 181 (6th Dist.). In other words, “it is only necessary that the result is within the natural and logical scope of risk created by the conduct[.]” Turner at ¶ 90, citing State v. Pierce, 2023-Ohio-528, ¶ 24 (8th Dist.).

8. {¶ 28} State v. Pettaway, 2025-Ohio-2260, ¶ 42 (6th Dist.); In re Mark M., 2000

WL 125800, *3 (6th Dist. Feb. 4, 2000). “Absent an admission, whether a person acts

knowingly may be determined solely from the surrounding facts and circumstances,

including the doing of the act itself.” State v. Jasso, 2023-Ohio-209, ¶ 27 (6th Dist.),

citing State v. Hendricks, 2020-Ohio-5218, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.), citing In re S.C.W., 2011-

Ohio-3193, ¶ 18 (9th Dist.). It is a subjective determination, decided on objective

criteria. Id., citing Hendricks at ¶ 19.

{¶ 29} Giannini relies on State v. Lillie, 2018-Ohio-2714 (5th Dist.), State v.

Kemper, 2012-Ohio-5958 (12th Dist.), and Mark M., where the courts overturned assault

convictions finding insufficient evidence of intent.

{¶ 30} Lillie involved an incident where the defendant and a humane society

worker simultaneously tried to catch the defendant’s loose dog when the defendant

pushed the worker on the shoulder. Id. at ¶ 3. The worker neither fell nor sustained

injury. Id. When police arrived, the defendant told them he was agitated because the

humane society had taken his dog and that he lightly pushed the worker. Id. at ¶ 4.

Following a bench trial, the court found the defendant guilty of attempted assault. Id. at ¶

7. Reversing, the court of appeals, relying on Kemper, concluded that the defendant’s

contact with the worker was an attempt to block her from accessing his dog, not to cause

harm. Id. at ¶ 15.

{¶ 31} In Kemper, the court of appeals, in a split decision, reversed the

defendant’s assault conviction based on insufficient evidence of intent. Trying to get his

9. belongings from a house and the victim trying to prevent him, the defendant “shoved” the

victim two times which involved him placing his hands on the victim’s shoulders and

moving her to the side. Id. at ¶ 3, 15. The victim was not injured. Id. at ¶ 15. The court

concluded that there was “insufficient evidence to establish that [the defendant] was

aware that placing his hands on [the victim’s] shoulder to move her aside would probably

cause a certain result, mainly physical harm.” Id. at ¶ 17.

{¶ 32} Finally, in Mark M., this court reversed an assault conviction where the

defendant pushed a teacher out of the way to access a student who made a derogatory

remark. Id. at *1. The court concluded that the defendant intended to move the teacher

“without regard to whether such physical encounter would cause harm,” and that the

intent element had not been satisfied. Id. at *3.

{¶ 33} Here, it is undisputed that the parties had a contentious history which

included the events directly leading up to the incident. The State presented the testimony

of Sergeant Szakats that Giannini ran into S.F. with enough force to knock her over and

that he observed S.F.’s injuries. Additionally, the BWC recording and the home security

footage depict Giannini quickly and purposely walking toward the door while telling S.F.

to get out of the way and then shoving her. The State also submitted photos of abrasions

on S.F.’s back which S.F. stated Giannini caused by pushing her into the doorframe.

Giannini also admitted he pushed S.F. Thus, unlike the facts in Lillie, Kemper, or Mark

M., when viewing the evidence presented in this case in a light most favorable to the

State, Giannini’s conviction is supported by sufficient evidence.

10. {¶ 34} Giannini also claims that his assault conviction was against the weight of

the evidence demonstrating that he did not act with intent to cause S.F. physical harm

rather, he acted to prevent injury to his dogs. Again, reviewing the evidence before the

jury, particularly the responding officer’s testimony and the security video from within

the house, this is not an exceptional case where the evidence weighs heavily against the

conviction. As previously stated, the home security video shows Giannini quickly

striding toward the front door while ordering S.F. to get out of his way, then shoving her

to the side as he continued out the door. He did not merely “move her aside to protect his

property” as Giannini asserts. After officers placed him under arrest, Giannini admitted

that he pushed her.

{¶ 35} Accordingly, because Giannini’s assault conviction was supported by

sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence it is affirmed.

Giannini’s assignment of error is not well-taken.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 36} Upon due consideration, the judgment of the Erie County Municipal Court

is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, Giannini is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

11. State of Ohio v. Christopher Giannini Court of Appeals No.: E-25-0026 Trial Court No.: CRB-25-00062

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. JUDGE

Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE

Charles E. Sulek, J. CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

12.