[Cite as State v. Hodge, 2024-Ohio-2673.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2024-A-0002
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - County Court, Eastern District
JOHN A. HODGE, Trial Court No. 2023 CRB 00342 E Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: July 15, 2024 Judgment: Affirmed
Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Mark Majer, Assistant Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Eric D. Hall, P.O. Box 232, Medina, OH 44258 (For Defendant-Appellant).
EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, John A. Hodge, appeals his conviction for domestic violence
following a jury trial. We affirm.
{¶2} In 2023, a complaint was filed against Hodge, charging him with domestic
violence, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(2). Hodge
pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. {¶3} Following the trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Thereafter, the court
imposed a sentence of 180 days of confinement, with a jail-time credit of 47 days, and
ordered that Hodge pay court costs.1
{¶4} In his two assigned errors, Hodge argues:
{¶5} “[1.] The evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict of guilty.
{¶6} “[2.] Appellant’s conviction was against the manifest weight of the
evidence.”
{¶7} The question of whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction “is a test
of adequacy,” which we review de novo. State v. Thompkins, 1997-Ohio-52, 386. “In a
sufficiency-of-the-evidence inquiry, the question is whether the evidence presented, when
viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would allow any rational trier of fact
to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Dent,
2020-Ohio-6670, ¶ 15, citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of
the syllabus.
{¶8} Unlike a review of the sufficiency of the evidence, our review of the “[w]eight
of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence … to
support one side of the issue rather than the other.’” (Emphasis in original.) Thompkins
at 387, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990). When considering challenges to
the weight of the evidence, an appellate court reviews “‘the entire record, weighs the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and
1. Although Hodge did not seek to stay his sentence, and thus it would appear that he has already served the ordered term of confinement, this court has held that an appeal from a misdemeanor conviction is not rendered moot when court costs remain outstanding. State v. Landingham, 2021-Ohio-4258, ¶ 4 (11th Dist.). The trial court’s online docket indicates that Hodge has not yet paid court costs in this matter. 2
Case No. 2024-A-0002 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.’” Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172,
175 (1st Dist. 1983). “When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the
basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a
‘“‘thirteenth juror’”’ and disagrees with the factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting
testimony.” Thompkins at 387, quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982). “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.” Thompkins at 387, quoting
Martin at 175.
{¶9} Here, as set forth in our recitation of the procedural history, the jury found
Hodge guilty of domestic violence, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C.
2919.25(A), which provides, “No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause
physical harm to a family or household member.” “‘Physical harm to persons’ means any
injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.”
R.C. 2901.01(A)(3).
{¶10} In support of the charge, at trial, the state presented the testimony of an
officer for the North Kingsville Police Department. The officer testified that, on October
19, 2023, Hodge and a woman pulled their car alongside the officer’s parked cruiser.
Hodge told the officer that his wife (“wife”) was missing, and the officer began taking a
description of wife. As Hodge was speaking to the officer, wife approached on foot, and
appeared distraught and crying. She reported to the officer that she did not want to go
home with Hodge because she feared for her life. Wife explained that Hodge had grabbed
Case No. 2024-A-0002 her by her hair and by her face because wife had upset Hodge’s girlfriend, who he had
moved into the marital home with them. Although wife appeared to have been drinking,
the officer noted that she was alert, oriented, and capable of completing a domestic
violence complaint. The officer identified video clips, which were played to the jury, of
wife’s statements as recorded by the officer’s body camera in his cruiser and at the police
station. The video was admitted into evidence. During the officer’s testimony, he also
identified a photograph he took of the left side of wife’s face. The officer explained that
the photograph displayed red marks on wife’s face that were visible to the officer. This
photograph was also admitted into evidence. On cross-examination, the officer
acknowledged that red marks on a face or a flushed face could occur due to intoxication.
{¶11} Thereafter, wife testified that she was highly intoxicated at the time of the
incident, and an altercation ensued between her and Hodge because wife was unhappy
about the other woman that Hodge had brought into their marriage. However, wife
maintained that Hodge did not physically harm her during the argument. Instead, wife
stated that Hodge “did (unintelligible) head and tell me to go fix it, 'cause she got upset
'cause I was upset.”
{¶12} Wife confirmed that she reported to the officer that Hodge had grabbed her
hair and her face, “[b]ut he did not -- I told you that. He didn't really grab my face. He
just went like this and told me to go fix it. I told you this --." No description of any gestures
wife may have made during this testimony was read into the record. Thereafter, on the
state’s motion, the court allowed the state to treat wife as a hostile witness. Again, wife
denied that Hodge put his hands on her face. However, wife verified her signature on a
domestic violence complaint, which was admitted into evidence. The domestic violence
Case No. 2024-A-0002 complaint states that Hodge did cause or attempted to cause physical harm to wife. The
state then inquired of wife why Hodge grabbed her by her hair, and wife responded that
it was because she had upset the other woman, and Hodge wanted wife to “go fix it.”
{¶13} On cross-examination by defense counsel, wife confirmed that the domestic
violence complaint did not note the nature of the assaults where such information was
requested on the form. On further questioning by the state, wife denied that Hodge had
“pull[ed]” her by her hair.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Hodge, 2024-Ohio-2673.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2024-A-0002
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - County Court, Eastern District
JOHN A. HODGE, Trial Court No. 2023 CRB 00342 E Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: July 15, 2024 Judgment: Affirmed
Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Mark Majer, Assistant Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Eric D. Hall, P.O. Box 232, Medina, OH 44258 (For Defendant-Appellant).
EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, John A. Hodge, appeals his conviction for domestic violence
following a jury trial. We affirm.
{¶2} In 2023, a complaint was filed against Hodge, charging him with domestic
violence, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(2). Hodge
pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. {¶3} Following the trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Thereafter, the court
imposed a sentence of 180 days of confinement, with a jail-time credit of 47 days, and
ordered that Hodge pay court costs.1
{¶4} In his two assigned errors, Hodge argues:
{¶5} “[1.] The evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict of guilty.
{¶6} “[2.] Appellant’s conviction was against the manifest weight of the
evidence.”
{¶7} The question of whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction “is a test
of adequacy,” which we review de novo. State v. Thompkins, 1997-Ohio-52, 386. “In a
sufficiency-of-the-evidence inquiry, the question is whether the evidence presented, when
viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would allow any rational trier of fact
to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Dent,
2020-Ohio-6670, ¶ 15, citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of
the syllabus.
{¶8} Unlike a review of the sufficiency of the evidence, our review of the “[w]eight
of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence … to
support one side of the issue rather than the other.’” (Emphasis in original.) Thompkins
at 387, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990). When considering challenges to
the weight of the evidence, an appellate court reviews “‘the entire record, weighs the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and
1. Although Hodge did not seek to stay his sentence, and thus it would appear that he has already served the ordered term of confinement, this court has held that an appeal from a misdemeanor conviction is not rendered moot when court costs remain outstanding. State v. Landingham, 2021-Ohio-4258, ¶ 4 (11th Dist.). The trial court’s online docket indicates that Hodge has not yet paid court costs in this matter. 2
Case No. 2024-A-0002 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.’” Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172,
175 (1st Dist. 1983). “When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the
basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a
‘“‘thirteenth juror’”’ and disagrees with the factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting
testimony.” Thompkins at 387, quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982). “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.” Thompkins at 387, quoting
Martin at 175.
{¶9} Here, as set forth in our recitation of the procedural history, the jury found
Hodge guilty of domestic violence, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C.
2919.25(A), which provides, “No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause
physical harm to a family or household member.” “‘Physical harm to persons’ means any
injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.”
R.C. 2901.01(A)(3).
{¶10} In support of the charge, at trial, the state presented the testimony of an
officer for the North Kingsville Police Department. The officer testified that, on October
19, 2023, Hodge and a woman pulled their car alongside the officer’s parked cruiser.
Hodge told the officer that his wife (“wife”) was missing, and the officer began taking a
description of wife. As Hodge was speaking to the officer, wife approached on foot, and
appeared distraught and crying. She reported to the officer that she did not want to go
home with Hodge because she feared for her life. Wife explained that Hodge had grabbed
Case No. 2024-A-0002 her by her hair and by her face because wife had upset Hodge’s girlfriend, who he had
moved into the marital home with them. Although wife appeared to have been drinking,
the officer noted that she was alert, oriented, and capable of completing a domestic
violence complaint. The officer identified video clips, which were played to the jury, of
wife’s statements as recorded by the officer’s body camera in his cruiser and at the police
station. The video was admitted into evidence. During the officer’s testimony, he also
identified a photograph he took of the left side of wife’s face. The officer explained that
the photograph displayed red marks on wife’s face that were visible to the officer. This
photograph was also admitted into evidence. On cross-examination, the officer
acknowledged that red marks on a face or a flushed face could occur due to intoxication.
{¶11} Thereafter, wife testified that she was highly intoxicated at the time of the
incident, and an altercation ensued between her and Hodge because wife was unhappy
about the other woman that Hodge had brought into their marriage. However, wife
maintained that Hodge did not physically harm her during the argument. Instead, wife
stated that Hodge “did (unintelligible) head and tell me to go fix it, 'cause she got upset
'cause I was upset.”
{¶12} Wife confirmed that she reported to the officer that Hodge had grabbed her
hair and her face, “[b]ut he did not -- I told you that. He didn't really grab my face. He
just went like this and told me to go fix it. I told you this --." No description of any gestures
wife may have made during this testimony was read into the record. Thereafter, on the
state’s motion, the court allowed the state to treat wife as a hostile witness. Again, wife
denied that Hodge put his hands on her face. However, wife verified her signature on a
domestic violence complaint, which was admitted into evidence. The domestic violence
Case No. 2024-A-0002 complaint states that Hodge did cause or attempted to cause physical harm to wife. The
state then inquired of wife why Hodge grabbed her by her hair, and wife responded that
it was because she had upset the other woman, and Hodge wanted wife to “go fix it.”
{¶13} On cross-examination by defense counsel, wife confirmed that the domestic
violence complaint did not note the nature of the assaults where such information was
requested on the form. On further questioning by the state, wife denied that Hodge had
“pull[ed]” her by her hair. Thus, the record is unclear as to wife’s testimony with respect
to the manner in which Hodge had physical contact with her during their argument.
{¶14} After wife testified, the state recalled the officer. The officer affirmed that
wife’s testimony conflicted with her statements given to the officer on the date of the
incident. The officer maintained that wife had “a red mark on her chin and she had
scratches up on her" cheek, which was consistent with her statement to the officer that
Hodge had grabbed her by her face.
{¶15} On cross-examination, the officer acknowledged that, on another form he
had completed following the incident, he noted that there was no injury to wife or Hodge.
On redirect examination, the officer affirmed that he may have made a mistake on this
standardized form because numerous forms are required from an officer when domestic
violence has been reported. This form, titled “Officer’s Report for Domestic Violence
Incident Call,” was admitted into evidence.
{¶16} After the officer’s rebuttal testimony, the state rested, and Hodge moved for
acquittal under Crim.R. 29, arguing that wife unequivocally testified that Hodge did not
cause her physical injury. The trial court overruled the motion, and the defense rested.
Case No. 2024-A-0002 {¶17} In support of his assigned errors on appeal, Hodge relies on wife’s
testimony denying that Hodge caused her any physical harm. However, as the officer
testified to wife’s statements following the incident, and the video and domestic violence
complaint were admitted into evidence without objection or limitation, wife’s statements
made following the incident are substantive evidence of physical harm supporting the
elements of the offense. See State v. Pallai, 2008-Ohio-6635, ¶ 26. Viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the state, the state produced sufficient evidence in support
of the conviction.
{¶18} With respect to the weight of the evidence, this case rests on the credibility
of wife, as either her initial report to the officer or her testimony in court was fabricated.
“However, as an appellate court, we must defer to the finder of fact on such a credibility
question.” Pallai at ¶ 35. It was within the province of the jury to reject wife’s testimony
that conflicted with the statements she provided to the officer. See State v. Lavean, 2021-
Ohio-1456, ¶ 37 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Miller, 2019-Ohio-92, ¶ 28 (4th Dist.) (“‘The
trier of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness, and we
defer to the trier of fact on evidentiary weight and credibility issues because it is in the
best position to gauge the witnesses’ demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections, and to
use these observations to weigh their credibility.’”). Further, the jury had before it the
officer’s testimony that the marks on wife’s face were consistent with wife’s statement that
Hodge had grabbed her face. Our review of the record indicates that this is not the
extraordinary case where the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.
Case No. 2024-A-0002 {¶19} Accordingly, Hodge’s assigned errors lack merit.
{¶20} The judgment is affirmed.
MATT LYNCH, J.,
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
concur.
Case No. 2024-A-0002