[Cite as State v. Hix, 2025-Ohio-5656.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 30504 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2024 CR 00103 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas JACOB HIX : Court) : Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & : OPINION
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on December 19, 2025, the judgment
of the trial court is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
RONALD C. LEWIS, JUDGE
EPLEY, P.J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur. OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30504
DAVID R. MILES, Attorney for Appellant ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellee
LEWIS, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Jacob Hix appeals from his conviction for aggravated
robbery in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court following a jury trial. For the
following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On February 22, 2024, Hix was indicted by a Montgomery County grand jury on
one count of aggravated robbery (serious physical harm), in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3),
a felony of the first degree; one count of grand theft (motor vehicle), in violation of
R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree; and one count of receiving stolen property
(motor vehicle), in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), a felony of the fourth degree. Hix entered
a plea of not guilty, and the case proceeded to a jury trial.
{¶ 3} Prior to the presentation of evidence, the parties entered several stipulations,
which were provided to the jury. The stipulations included agreeing to the authenticity of
the 911 call made on January 10, 2024, at 8:33 a.m. by B.G., the authenticity of Dayton
Police Department body worn camera footage from Detective Melissa Boyes, Officer Joseph
Ma, and Officer Shana Newell, the identity of the owner of a Chevrolet Trax involved in the
case, and the authenticity of Ring video camera footage obtained from 22 Meridian Street
on January 10, 2024. The following testimony was presented at trial.
{¶ 4} B.G. testified that she lived on Monmouth Street in the City of Dayton with her
husband, father-in-law, son, and grandson. Her house was in a residential neighborhood
2 with street parking. On January 10, 2024, around 8:30 a.m., B.G. was getting ready to take
her grandson to school. She started her car, a gray 2016 Chevrolet Trax, to warm it up
because it was cold and snowing outside. She left her car running and went inside the
house to tell her grandson it was time to go. As B.G. walked back outside onto her porch,
she saw the driver’s side door of her car open and someone climb into her car. She
screamed at the man to stop and ran to her car to stop him from stealing it. B.G. was behind
her vehicle when the thief put the car in reverse and knocked B.G. to the ground. B.G.
estimated the thief was driving 5 to 10 miles per hour when he hit her right shoulder causing
an injury. The thief then drove off toward Third Street and B.G. called the police.
{¶ 5} When police arrived, B.G. declined any medical treatment but told officers she
was sore and had leg and hip pain. Although she did not complain of shoulder pain at that
time, she later contacted her orthopedic surgeon due to the pain in her shoulder. He
ordered an MRI for her right shoulder. There was severe tendon damage, and she had
surgery on her right shoulder in March 2024. Following the surgery, B.G. underwent
therapy but continued to have pain in her arm through the time of trial. B.G. acknowledged
she had issues with her left shoulder previously but denied having an issue with her right
shoulder prior to the January 10, 2024 incident. The injury to B.G.’s right shoulder was
more severe than the issues she had previously had with her left shoulder.
{¶ 6} B.G. and her husband had just purchased the Trax from JD Byrider (“Byrider”)
two weeks prior to the theft. There was only one key for the vehicle, and no copies had
been made. B.G. did not know the man who took her car, and he did not have permission
to take it. B.G. identified the person who stole her car as wearing a black hoodie over his
head and maybe a black jacket. She could not identify any other characteristics about the
thief.
3 {¶ 7} B.G.’s vehicle was recovered undamaged a few hours later. Nothing was
missing from the vehicle. B.G. did not know Hix and he did not have permission to take the
Trax.
{¶ 8} B.G.’s son, J.G., testified that his parents only owned one vehicle, the 2016
Chevrolet Trax. B.G. generally took J.G.’s son to school each day because J.G. did not
own a vehicle and he had to work.
{¶ 9} On January 10, 2024, B.G. was going to take her grandson to school. After
she started up the Trax, she came back inside the house. As she was on her way back out
the door, a man wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and jeans jumped into the driver’s seat
of the Trax. The man put the car in reverse and backed into B.G. then drove off. J.G. was
standing at the front door, about 15 feet away from the car, when he saw his mother get hit
by the car. The car had been parked in front of the house on the street when it was stolen.
{¶ 10} The police responded to the home about 12 minutes later. Once the police
arrived, J.G. called Byrider to get the LoJack app to track the Trax’s GPS location. LoJack
is a downloadable app on the phone that can track the location of the vehicle using a GPS
tracking system. The app showed the location of the vehicle, where it had been, how long
it had been there, and the time of travel each time the car was started. J.G. explained that
to track the vehicle using LoJack, there had to be a police report indicating the car was
stolen. The police could also use LoJack to track the vehicle.
{¶ 11} J.G. borrowed his grandfather’s car to track the Trax himself using the LoJack
app. J.G. was on the phone with his sister who relayed the location of the stolen vehicle as
it was tracked on the app. The Trax was discovered on Davis Avenue, just off Huffman
Avenue, approximately 15 to 20 minutes after it was stolen.
4 {¶ 12} The vehicle was stolen with the only key fob the family had to the vehicle, and
the key fob was missing. After the car was located, it took about 30 to 45 minutes before
the key fob was found. Officers located it in the parking lot of a store on Huffman Avenue.
The vehicle was returned to the family approximately two hours after it had initially been
stolen.
{¶ 13} Dayton Police Officer Jessica Harris testified that on January 10, 2024, she
was working the 7:00 a.m. shift on the east side of Dayton with her field training officer
Michael Conrads. Officer Conrads was driving their marked patrol car when they were
advised to look for a vehicle that had been stolen. The officers looked for a silver Chevrolet
Trax in the area of Meridian Street on the east side of Dayton.
{¶ 14} The officers received real time updates as they searched for the stolen vehicle.
Over the radio, they were informed that Dayton Police Detective Boyes had seen a person,
later identified as Hix, and that he was chasing him. Officers Harris and Conrads pulled
onto Huffman and saw Detective Boyes come around the corner chasing Hix. Officer Harris
did not observe Hix throw anything. Officers Harris and Conrads got out of their vehicle
and helped detain Hix. Once Hix was detained, Officer Harris drove to where the stolen
vehicle was located and secured it to prevent any tampering.
{¶ 15} J.G. subsequently arrived to retrieve the vehicle, but he could not start it
because there was no key fob available. Officers searched the area where Detective Boyes
said that she had run after Hix. When they were on Huffman Avenue, they located the key
fob inside a fenced yard about five feet away from where Hix had been apprehended. It
was very cold outside and raining, so when the key fob was located, it was wet and could
not be fingerprinted. Officer Harris verified that the key fob belonged to the stolen Trax and
turned it over to J.G.
5 {¶ 16} Doctor Daniel Dunaway was an orthopedic surgeon for Kettering Health
Network. Dr. Dunaway testified that B.G. was under his care for several years. She had
issues with her left shoulder in the past and had a tear in her left rotator cuff, which had
required surgery a year or two previously. On February 1, 2024, B.G. had an office visit
regarding an injury she sustained to her right shoulder. Dr. Dunaway had seen B.G. once
or twice in the preceding six months at which time B.G. had complained of right shoulder
pain and was diagnosed with rotator cuff tendonitis. On February 1, B.G. presented with
rotator cuff disease, which was the muscle that controlled her ability to rotate her shoulder
and was diagnosed with rotator cuff tendonitis. The injury was an exacerbation of what she
had previously had in her right shoulder. Dr. Dunaway did not observe any other injuries to
B.G. such as bruises. An MRI confirmed B.G. had a tear in her bicep tendon.
Dr. Dunaway performed surgery on B.G.’s right shoulder on March 12, 2024.
{¶ 17} At the time of B.G.’s surgery, Dr. Dunaway discovered that B.G. had a partial
tear to the bicep, a partial tear of the rotator cuff tendon, and a tear of the labrum, which is
cartilage. Dr. Dunaway performed the surgery on B.G. arthroscopically with small incisions.
He used sutures to repair the torn fibers of the tendon, conducted a bicep tenotomy to B.G.’s
bicep, and trimmed the torn area of the labrum. The bicep tear was in the right shoulder
area next to the rotator cuff tendon.
{¶ 18} Dr. Dunaway opined that, hypothetically, if a person had been hit in the right
arm or shoulder by a moving automobile and presented with the type of injury that B.G. had,
the tear, like the one found in B.G.’s shoulder, or an exacerbation of a tear could have been
caused by the collision. Dr. Dunaway stated that although tendon damage could occur
naturally over time, an injury could speed up the process of damage.
6 {¶ 19} Joseph Ma testified that he had been an officer with Dayton Police Department
for about a year-and-a-half and had previously worked for the City of Union Police
Department and a sheriff’s office. In 2024, Officer Ma was assigned to the east side of
Dayton and worked the day shift from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. On January 10, 2024, he
was working in a two-man crew with his field training officer. Around 9:00 a.m., the officers
were notified of a stolen silver Chevrolet Trax that may have struck someone.
{¶ 20} Officer Ma and his training officer responded to B.G.’s home on Monmouth
Street and spoke to B.G. and her son. B.G. advised that her Trax had been stolen by
someone with dark hair. B.G. stated she was sore but did not request an ambulance. The
owners advised that the Trax had recently been purchased and had a 40-day tag on the
front. Because it was a recent purchase, there was a security feature that could be used to
locate the vehicle. The owners provided a phone number to contact a tracking company.
Although B.G.’s phone number was originally used to track the vehicle, the information was
switched to Officer Ma’s phone. Officer Ma was provided live updates of the GPS location
of the vehicle, which he conveyed to other Dayton police crews over the radio. Officer Ma
and his field training officer drove in the direction of the stolen vehicle and continued to call
out the tracking directions to other officers. The tracking information indicated that the
stolen vehicle started out on Monmouth Street and went to an address near Burkhardt Road,
directly across from a Speedway gas station. The stolen vehicle then went back toward the
area of Huffman Avenue.
{¶ 21} Dayton Police Detective Melissa Boyes testified that she had been a detective
for about seven years and was assigned to handle property crimes that occurred on the east
side of Dayton. On January 10, 2024, Detective Boyes was at her desk at police
headquarters and overheard radio traffic about a grand theft of a motor vehicle in progress.
7 She heard officers over the radio indicate that they were tracking the stolen vehicle with a
LoJack system, which was a GPS tracker that provided the location of the vehicle.
{¶ 22} Detective Boyes started to respond to Monmouth when she heard an update
that the vehicle tracker pinged the vehicle at 4970 Burkhardt Road, which was a Speedway
gas station. Detective Boyes drove an unmarked police car toward the Speedway gas
station to look for the stolen car. On her way to the Speedway, additional updated ping
locations were tracked to Haviland Avenue, Linden Avenue, and Davis Avenue. Detective
Boyes observed the stolen vehicle parked on Meridian Street near 233 Davis Avenue where
it last pinged.
{¶ 23} No one was inside the stolen vehicle, but Detective Boyes saw a man, later
identified as Hix, walking on Meridian Street away from the vehicle. Hix was wearing dark
jeans, a dark hoodie, and a jacket. Hix was looking over his right and left shoulders in her
direction. No one else was in the area. Detective Boyes followed Hix in her car for 10 to
15 seconds. At the intersection of Meridian Street and Huffman Avenue, Hix crossed
diagonally, which was a jaywalking violation. Detective Boyes stepped out of her car to talk
to Hix and told him to come over to her. Hix turned toward her and said “no.” Hix then ran
away from Detective Boyes, who chased after him. While running away, Hix threw a
Speedway cup to the ground. The Speedway cup contained a brown liquid and was later
photographed and collected. Detective Boyes’s body worn camera reflected that she got
out of her cruiser to speak to Hix at 9:27 a.m.
{¶ 24} Detective Boyes was wearing a tactical vest with “Dayton Police Department”
written on the front and back, a name badge on her vest, a metal badge on her hip, and her
firearm in plain sight. She radioed officers in the area with updated directions of where Hix
8 was running and they were able to apprehend him on the 900 block of Huffman Avenue.
No items of interest were found on his person.
{¶ 25} Once Hix was taken into custody, he was Mirandized and questioned about
the stolen vehicle. Hix denied any involvement in the theft of the vehicle. He claimed that
he ran because he was chased by two black males and he was scared. Detective Boyes,
a white female, had not seen anyone else in the area when Hix fled.
{¶ 26} While Detective Boyes spoke with Hix, other officers searched for the missing
key fob to the stolen vehicle. Officer Harris located the key fob in the front yard of an
address on Huffman Avenue, just inside a chain link fence, about 5 to 10 feet away from
where Hix had been arrested. No fingerprints or DNA were collected from the key fob
because it was wet. Officers verified the key fob went to the stolen vehicle and turned the
car over to the family. Detective Boyes elected not to fingerprint the vehicle before turning
it over to the owners.
{¶ 27} Detective Boyes spoke to a neighbor across the street from where the stolen
vehicle was found parked on Meridian Street. She had observed a Ring doorbell camera
affixed to the front of the house. The homeowner allowed Detective Boyes to take a
recording of the surveillance video from that morning showing the stolen vehicle being
parked. In the video, a man fitting the description of Hix could be seen getting out of the
driver’s seat of the stolen vehicle after parking it at 9:25 a.m. He was wearing the same
kind of clothes in the video that Hix was wearing when he was arrested. He then left the
area walking toward Huffman Avenue.
{¶ 28} Later that same day, Detective Boyes went to the Speedway on Burkhardt
Road and spoke to the clerks. Someone matching Hix’s description had been in the
Speedway and purchased a coffee and a couple of breakfast sandwiches. The clerks
9 noticed that the individual was missing some fingers. Upon reviewing surveillance video,
Detective Boyes observed Hix entering the Speedway at 9:02 a.m. wearing the same outfit
in which he had been arrested. There were no videos or photographs of Hix operating the
stolen vehicle at Speedway. The Speedway did not have cameras on the rear of their
building.
{¶ 29} Detective Boyes identified a map of the various LoJack pinged locations and
route of the stolen vehicle. The stolen vehicle initially was located on Monmouth at B.G.’s
address. Hix’s criminal history revealed that he had a prior address a few houses away
from B.G.’s address. The LoJack tracked the vehicle from Monmouth to Third Street where
it turned right. The vehicle then travelled to 4970 Burkhardt Road, which was the Speedway
gas station. It then drove back down Burkhardt Road to Haviland Avenue, to Linden
Avenue, and then to Davis Avenue. Ultimately, the vehicle stopped on Meridian Street near
Huffman Avenue, which is where Detective Boyes first observed Hix.
{¶ 30} Detective Boyes spoke to B.G. a day or two after the incident and again on a
later date to obtain a release for B.G.’s medical records. She did not speak to B.G.’s
neighbors or seek videos of the theft of the vehicle from any of the neighbors. Detective
Boyes did not do a photo lineup to see if B.G. could identify Hix as the thief.
{¶ 31} Tiffani Bishop, an employee at Byrider, testified that B.G.’s husband
purchased the 2016 Chevrolet Trax on January 2, 2024. The purchase included the
optional LoJack Go service, which was a GPS placed on the vehicle in the event that the
vehicle was taken without the owner’s consent. If a vehicle were stolen, the owner could
call Byrider to get the GPS location of the vehicle, or they could use an app to track it.
Byrider used the LoJack service internally to track vehicles in the event of repossession.
Of the 450 to 500 cars sold each year in the Dayton area, Byrider used LoJack to repossess
10 about 50 of them. The LoJack system was frequently used internally by Byrider, not just to
repossess vehicles, but also to track down the purchasers.
{¶ 32} The jury found Hix guilty as charged. At sentencing, the trial court merged all
three counts into one count of aggravated robbery and imposed an indefinite term of a
minimum of three years to a maximum of four and one-half-years in prison. Hix timely
appealed.
II. Manifest Weight and Sufficiency of the Evidence
{¶ 33} In his first assignment of error, Hix argues that his convictions are based upon
insufficient evidence. Specifically, Hix contends that the State failed to prove his identity as
the offender and that the injury to B.G.’s right shoulder was merely exacerbated and does
not constitute serious physical harm. In his second assignment of error, Hix contends that
his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence for the same reasons.
Because these arguments are interrelated, we will consider them together.
{¶ 34} Although Hix argues that his convictions on each of the three charges of which
he was found guilty are against the sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight of the
evidence, the trial court merged the three offenses at the time of sentencing. “‘When a trial
court dispatches with a count through merger, any error in the jury's verdict on the merged
count is rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Stargell, 2016-Ohio-
5653, ¶ 57 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Wolff, 2009-Ohio-2897, ¶ 70 (7th Dist.), citing State v.
Powell, 49 Ohio St.3d 255, 263 (1990). Therefore, we will limit our analysis to Hix’s
conviction for aggravated robbery.
{¶ 35} Whether the evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to sustain a
conviction is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo. State v. Groce,
2020-Ohio-6671, ¶ 7. “To resolve a sufficiency challenge, we must determine ‘whether,
11 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. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 325, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d
259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. An appellate court does not engage in a
determination of the witnesses' credibility when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence.
State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123, 139 (1998), citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230
(1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. Nor does an appellate court assess whether the
evidence admitted at trial should be believed but, rather, if believed, the evidence “would
convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jenks at
paragraph two of the syllabus. “We will not disturb the verdict unless we find that
reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier of fact.” State v.
Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 484 (2001), citing Jenks at 273.
{¶ 36} In contrast to a sufficiency challenge, the weight of the evidence concerns the
inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered to support one side of the issue
rather than the other. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). “A reviewing
court considering a manifest-weight claim ‘review[s] the entire record, weighs the evidence
and all reasonable inferences, [and] considers the credibility of witnesses.’” State v. Group,
2002-Ohio-7247, ¶ 77, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).
A case should be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence only “‘in the
exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.’” Thompkins
at 387, quoting Martin at 175.
{¶ 37} Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence are quantitatively and
qualitatively different legal concepts. Thompkins at paragraph two of the syllabus.
“‘Although sufficiency and manifest weight are different legal concepts, manifest weight may
12 subsume sufficiency in conducting the analysis; that is, a finding that a conviction is
supported by the manifest weight of the evidence necessarily includes a finding of
sufficiency.’” State v. Cobb, 2025-Ohio-1274, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. McCrary,
2011-Ohio-3161, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.). Consequently, “‘a determination that a conviction is
supported by the weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency.’”
State v. Farra, 2022-Ohio-1421, ¶ 51 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Braxton, 2005-Ohio-2198,
¶ 15 (10th Dist.).
a. Identity
{¶ 38} “Every criminal prosecution requires proof that the person accused of the crime
is the person who committed the crime.” State v. Tate, 2014-Ohio-3667, ¶ 15. “Like any
fact, the state can prove the identity of the accused by ‘circumstantial or direct’ evidence.”
Id., citing Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d at 272-273.
{¶ 39} Hix is correct that no fingerprint or DNA evidence was submitted at trial. Nor
were B.G. or J.G. able to personally identify him as the culprit. Nevertheless, we conclude
there was sufficient evidence presented that a rational trier of fact could have found that Hix
was the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt and that finding is not against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
{¶ 40} B.G. observed an individual wearing a black hoodie with the hoodie up and
black jacket steal her car around 8:30 a.m. on January 10, 2024. J.G. likewise observed a
man wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and jeans steal the Trax. B.G. saw the stolen
vehicle drive down Monmouth and turn right onto Third Street. After police arrived, J.G.
contacted Byrider to start tracking the vehicle using the LoJack system. The vehicle
tracking showed that the vehicle started on Monmouth, drove north to Third Street and
turned east. The vehicle stopped at 4970 Burkhardt Road, which was a Speedway gas
13 station. Surveillance footage showed Hix entering the Speedway gas station at 9:02 a.m.
wearing dark jeans, a dark hoodie with the hoodie up, and a black jacket over his hoodie.
The clerks indicated that Hix, who was missing some fingers, purchased a coffee and some
breakfast sandwiches. When Hix ran from Detective Boyes less than a half hour later, she
saw Hix throw a Speedway cup with brown liquid in it to the ground, which was photographed
and collected.
{¶ 41} After leaving the gas station, the LoJack system tracked the stolen vehicle
west on Burkhardt Road and pinged the vehicle’s location on Haviland Avenue, Linden
Avenue, and Davis Avenue, eventually coming to a stop at Huffman Avenue and Meridian
Street. The vehicle was located by police on Meridian Street. A Ring doorbell video
recovered from a home on Meridian Street across the street from where the stolen vehicle
was recovered showed a man, consistent with Hix’s description, parking the stolen vehicle
at 9:25 a.m., getting out of the driver’s seat, and walking away toward Huffman Avenue. No
other individuals could be seen exiting the stolen vehicle. The driver of the stolen vehicle
was wearing dark pants, a black hoodie, and a black jacket.
{¶ 42} Detective Boyes observed Hix walking away from the stolen vehicle on
Meridian Street toward Huffman Avenue glancing over his shoulder looking back at her. No
other individuals were present in the area. Detective Boyes stopped her cruiser to speak
to Hix at 9:27 a.m., after having watched him walk away from the direction of the stolen
vehicle for 10 to 15 seconds. When Detective Boyes asked Hix to stop, he said “no,” and
took off running on Huffman Avenue. He was subsequently caught and arrested wearing
dark jeans, a black hoodie, and a black jacket. Although the key fob was not found in Hix’s
possession, the key fob was recovered approximately 5 to 10 feet away from where Hix was
arrested.
14 {¶ 43} Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a reasonable trier
of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Hix was the perpetrator who stole the 2016
Chevrolet Trax from B.G. on Monmouth, drove the vehicle to Speedway, and parked it on
Meridian Street. We likewise conclude that the jury did not lose its way in finding that Hix
was the perpetrator.
b. Serious Physical Harm
{¶ 44} Hix was convicted of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3).
Therefore, the State had to prove that in attempting or committing a theft offense, or in fleeing
immediately after the attempt or offense, Hix inflicted or attempted to inflict serious physical
harm on B.G. Hix challenges whether B.G. suffered serious physical harm and contends
that his conviction should be vacated because the State failed to demonstrate that B.G.
incurred serious physical harm. Alternatively, Hix asks this court to conclude that only
physical harm occurred and reduce his conviction to the lesser included offense of robbery.
{¶ 45} "Serious physical harm to persons" means any of the following:
(a) Any mental illness or condition of such gravity as would normally require
hospitalization or prolonged psychiatric treatment;
(b) Any physical harm that carries a substantial risk of death;
(c) Any physical harm that involves some permanent incapacity, whether
partial or total, or that involves some temporary, substantial incapacity;
(d) Any physical harm that involves some permanent disfigurement or that
involves some temporary, serious disfigurement;
(e) Any physical harm that involves acute pain of such duration as to result in
substantial suffering or that involves any degree of prolonged or intractable
pain.
15 R.C. 2901.01(A)(5).
{¶ 46} B.G. testified that when she saw Hix stealing her car, she ran to her car to stop
him. B.G. was behind her vehicle when Hix put the car in reverse and knocked B.G. to the
ground. The vehicle struck B.G.’s right shoulder causing an injury. Both her hip and her
leg were also sore. B.G. testified that although she declined medical treatment on the day
of the offense, she continued to have pain in her right shoulder and contacted her orthopedic
surgeon. An MRI was performed on her shoulder, which showed severe tendon damage.
B.G. had surgery on her right shoulder in March 2024. Following the surgery, B.G.
underwent physical therapy but continued to have pain in her arm through the time of trial,
more than a year after the incident. B.G. denied having an issue with her right shoulder
prior to the January 10, 2024 incident.
{¶ 47} B.G.’s orthopedic surgeon testified that on February 1, 2024, B.G. had an
office visit regarding an injury she sustained to her right shoulder. Dr. Dunaway had seen
B.G. once or twice in the preceding six months at which time B.G. had complained of right
shoulder pain and was diagnosed with rotator cuff tendonitis. B.G. presented with rotator
cuff disease and was diagnosed with rotator cuff tendonitis. The January 2024 injury was
an exacerbation of what B.G. had previously had in her right shoulder. An MRI confirmed
B.G. had a tear in her bicep tendon, and Dr. Dunaway performed surgery on her right
shoulder on March 12, 2024.
{¶ 48} At the time of B.G.’s surgery, Dr. Dunaway discovered that B.G. had a partial
tear to the bicep, a partial tear of the rotator cuff tendon, and a tear of the labrum, which is
cartilage. He repaired the torn fibers of the tendon, conducted a bicep tenotomy, and
trimmed the torn area of the labrum.
16 {¶ 49} Dr. Dunaway testified that, hypothetically, if a person had been hit in the right
arm or shoulder by a moving automobile and presented with the type of injury that B.G. had,
the tear, like the one found in B.G.’s shoulder, or an exacerbation of the tear could have
been caused by the collision. Dr. Dunaway stated that although tendon damage could
occur naturally over time, an injury could speed up the process of damage.
{¶ 50} “A jury is free to believe all, part, or none of a witness' testimony.” State v.
Hutchinson, 2010-Ohio-5752, ¶ 33 (2d Dist.). Based on this evidence, the jury could
reasonably find that Hix caused serious physical harm to B.G.’s right shoulder when he
struck her with the Trax. The evidence supports the finding that the physical harm to B.G.
involved acute pain that resulted in substantial suffering or involved any degree of prolonged
or intractable pain. R.C. 2901.01(A)(5)(e). The jury did not clearly lose its way or create
a manifest miscarriage of justice by finding that B.G. had suffered serious physical harm.
{¶ 51} Moreover, Hix could be convicted of aggravated robbery under the statute if
he inflicted or attempted to inflict serious physical harm on B.G. R.C. 2911.01(A)(3). “Our
court has stressed that ‘[w]hether a person commits a robbery or an aggravated robbery is
not determined by the condition in which the victim ultimately finds himself. Rather, it turns
on the nature of the assailant's actions and the potential for serious physical harm to the
victim.’” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Taylor, 2023-Ohio-1766, ¶ 40 (2d Dist.), quoting
State v. Mcguire, 1989 WL 159206, *3 (2d Dist. Dec. 27, 1989). Here, Hix reversed the
Trax and hit B.G. with the moving vehicle. Hitting someone with a vehicle and knocking
them down has the potential for causing serious physical harm, and it did cause such harm
here.
{¶ 52} In reviewing this record as a whole, we cannot say that the evidence weighs
heavily against a conviction, that the jury lost its way, or that a manifest miscarriage of justice
17 has occurred. Hix’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Hix’s two assignments of error are overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 53} Having overruled Hix’s assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
.............
EPLEY, P.J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.