State v. Jennings

2025 Ohio 727

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: 30726
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Jennings, 2025-Ohio-727.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 30726

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE PATRICK JENNINGS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellant CASE No. CR 21 03 0872

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: March 5, 2025

STEVENSON, Judge.

{¶1} Appellant, Patrick Jennings, appeals from his conviction in the Summit County

Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} Mr. Jennings was charged with felonious assault in violation of R.C.

2903.11(A)(2), 2903.11(D)(1)(a), a felony of the second degree, and assault in violation of R.C.

2903.13(A), 2903.13(C), a misdemeanor of the first degree. The charges stemmed from events

involving P.I. while at Mr. Jennings’s residence. Mr. Jennings pleaded not guilty to the charges

and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.

{¶3} P.I. testified to the following at trial: that long-time friend S.H. was giving her a

ride home the evening of the incident. S.H. told P.I. that she had to make a quick stop on the way

home that evening. P.I. later learned that they had stopped at Mr. Jennings’s residence. P.I. did not

know Mr. Jennings nor had she been to his residence prior to the assault. 2

{¶4} P.I. went into Mr. Jennings’s residence with S.H. P.I. testified that Mr. Jennings

was “a little wound up, but he didn’t seem intimidating” when the women entered the residence.

P.I. sat on a chair, later moving to a couch, and proceeded to look at and talk on her phone. P.I.

did not pay attention or otherwise notice what S.H. and Mr. Jennings were doing. She did not see

either S.H. or Mr. Jennings take drugs, smoke, drink, or remove clothing.

{¶5} At some point, P.I. saw S.H. and Mr. Jennings go down the hallway and into a back

area of the residence. S.H. and Mr. Jennings were only in the back area for a minute or so. Mr.

Jennings became “belligerent beyond understanding” after he and S.H. came back into the living

room area. P.I. did not know why Mr. Jennings was mad or “what transpired to make him this

mad.”

{¶6} P.I. testified that Mr. Jennings then proceeded to come at her “with like a red, crazy

look in his face.” P.I. decided that she had to “get[] out of [t]here” and she proceeded to stand up.

P.I. testified that Mr. Jennings pushed her back down, “snatched [her] purse and . . . flung it[,]”

and struck her in the head with a sword when she again tried to get up from the couch. P.I. testified

that the sword “just came down, and [Mr. Jennings] just sliced my head open.” When asked how

certain she was that Mr. Jennings is the one that hit her on the head, P.I. testified that she is “a

hundred percent sure it was him.”

{¶7} With blood dripping down her clothes, P.I. “charged [Mr. Jennings] with everything

I had in me.” P.I. testified that Mr. Jennings continued to beat her, fighting her all over the living

room and punching her in the face and head. According to P.I., Mr. Jennings was also kicking S.H.

in the fight. P.I. lost a hair piece that was glued to her head in the struggle.

{¶8} P.I. eventually reached her purse where she kept a taser. P.I. was able to get out of

the residence after tasing Mr. Jennings. 3

{¶9} P.I. ran and hid in a neighbor’s bushes because she thought “[Mr. Jennings] was

going to kill me. He already just tried to kill me.” P.I. “was terrified” when she called 911 from

the bushes. P.I. repeatedly informed the 911 operator that “he cut [her] with a knife,” “he stabbed

me,” and “he stabbed me in my head.” P.I. testified that S.H. ran away from the scene.

{¶10} P.I. had to get 12 staples on the top of her head because of the cut from the sword.

P.I. testified that she has a scar from this injury.

{¶11} In addition to P.I., responding Officers Devin Lane, Thomas Shoemaker, and

Davon Fields testified at trial. Officer Lane testified that Mr. Jennings was standing outside the

residence when he arrived at the scene and that Mr. Jennings had blood on his sweater. Officer

Lane also observed “a lady with injury to her head.” Upon entering Mr. Jennings’s residence,

Officer Lane observed “blood on the couch.”

{¶12} Officer Shoemaker similarly testified that he observed Mr. Jennings “walking

outside with a bloody sweater[]” when he arrived at the scene. Office Shoemaker observed blood

on the couch, floor, wall, door, clothing, and shoes inside of the residence. Officer Shoemaker

found the sword in Mr. Jennings’s kitchen.

{¶13} Officer Fields testified that he spoke to P.I. when he arrived at the scene and that

P.I. told him Mr. Jennings had “attacked [her] with the sword on top of - - hitting her on top of the

head.” When asked whether P.I. had given him “any indication that anyone other than [Mr.

Jennings] had attacked her[,]” Officer Fields testified that “[n]o, she did not.”

{¶14} Emily Feldenkris, a forensic scientist in the DNA section for the Ohio Bureau of

Criminal Investigation, also testified. Ms. Feldenkris performed two DNA analyses on Mr.

Jennings’s sword. Ms. Feldenkris testified that P.I.’s DNA profile is on the blade of the sword and

that the swab taken from the sword’s handle “was not suitable for comparison purposes due to 4

insufficient data.” Ms. Feldenkris explained that she did not have enough DNA markers from the

sword’s handle that were suitable for her to generate statistics for comparison. Although there is

not enough DNA present in the sword’s handle for Ms. Feldenkris “to make comparisons to,” she

can tell that male DNA is present in that sample. Ms. Feldenkris cannot exclude Mr. Jennings as a

DNA contributor on the sword’s handle. S.H. did not testify at trial.

{¶15} Mr. Jennings did not testify at trial. Mr. Jennings called Ryan Mize, the City of

Akron Firefighter who evaluated P.I. and prepared the EMS run report. Mr. Jennings questioned

Mr. Mize about the EMS run report, which states that P.I. was attacked by a “female.” Mr. Mize

testified that “[t]here [were] a lot of cops” at the scene and he described P.I. as “anxious[.]” Mr.

Mize acknowledged on cross-examination that he is taking down a lot of information when doing

his report, that a lot of things are going on, and that “[m]istakes can always occur.”

{¶16} A jury found Mr. Jennings guilty of felonious assault and not guilty of assault. The

trial court accepted the jury’s findings and sentenced Mr. Jennings to six to nine years in prison.

Mr. Jennings appeals his conviction raising two assignments of error for this Court’s review.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR FELONIOUS ASSAULT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 2903.11(A)(2)(D)(1)(a) OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS THE CONVICTION IS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE, SECTIONS TEN AND SIXTEEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION[.]

{¶17} Mr. Jennings argues in his first assignment of error that his conviction was not

based upon sufficient evidence as a matter of law, in violation of his Federal and Ohio

Constitutional rights. We disagree. 5

{¶18} Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law, which

this Court reviews de novo. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). “A challenge to

the sufficiency of the evidence concerns the State’s burden of production and is, in essence, a test

of adequacy.” State v. Wilk, 2023-Ohio-112, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.), citing In re R.H., 2017-Ohio-7852, ¶

25 (9th Dist.); Thompkins at 386. “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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259

(1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. “Although the standard of review is de novo, the appellate

court does not resolve evidentiary conflicts or assess the credibility of witnesses as those functions

belong to the trier of fact.” State v. Taylor, 2018-Ohio-2921, ¶ 27 (9th Dist.).

{¶19} Mr. Jennings was convicted of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2).

The statute prohibits “knowingly . . . caus[ing] or attempt[ing] to cause physical harm to another .

. . by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance.” “A person acts knowingly, regardless

of purpose, when the person is aware that the person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result

or will probably be of a certain nature.” R.C. 2901.22(B). “Deadly weapon” is defined as “any

instrument, device, or thing capable of inflicting death, or designed or specifically adopted for use

as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon.” R.C. 2903.11(E)(1) and R.C.

2923.11(A).

{¶20} Mr. Jennings argues that P.I.’s testimony was inconsistent and that there are too

many unknowns “about the time leading up to the actual assault, who committed the actual assault

and what occurred after.” He points out that a key witness, S.H., did not testify at trial and that

she refused to submit her DNA. According to Mr. Jennings, “[w]hat is reasonable here is that these 6

women [P.I. and S.H.] planned to rob [him][.]” The State argues that the record contains sufficient

evidence to support the felonious assault conviction.

{¶21} As it pertains to sufficiency of the evidence, Mr. Jennings does not dispute that P.I.

sustained a cut on the head from a sword at his house. P.I. testified she is “a hundred percent sure”

that Mr. Jennings is the one that struck her on the top of the head with the sword. The responding

officers observed P.I.’s injuries, blood on Mr. Jennings’s sweater and inside his residence, and

they found the sword inside Mr. Jennings’s kitchen. The testimony of Ms. Feldenkris, the forensic

scientist that performed the DNA analysis on the sword, confirmed that P.I.’s DNA is on the sword.

Ms. Feldenkris testified that male DNA is on the sword’s handle and she cannot exclude Mr.

Jennings as a DNA contributor on the sword’s handle. Mr. Jennings does not dispute this evidence

exists; he just claims it is not sufficiently credible to support his conviction. As this Court does not

assess credibility while reviewing a claim for sufficiency of the evidence, his argument must fail.

{¶22} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and upon a

thorough examination of the record, this Court concludes that there is sufficient evidence upon

which a jury could reasonably conclude that all elements of felonious assault in violation of R.C.

2903.11(A)(2) were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Assignment of error number one is

overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO

APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR FELONIOUS ASSAULT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 2903.11(A)(2)(D)(1)(a) OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS THE CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE, SECTIONS TEN AND SIXTEEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION[.] 7

{¶23} Mr. Jennings argues in his second assignment of error that his conviction was

against the manifest weight of the evidence, in violation of his Federal and Ohio Constitutional

rights. We disagree.

{¶24} “‘When considering whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, this Court applies a different standard than in a sufficiency analysis.’” State v. Evans,

2023-Ohio-4838, ¶ 29 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Zappa, 2022-Ohio-243, ¶ 17 (9th Dist.). To

evaluate the weight of the evidence, this Court must consider the entire record and “weigh the

evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine

whether, in resolving 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. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). “A reversal on this basis is reserved for

the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Evans at ¶ 29,

citing Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387.

{¶25} Mr. Jennings argues that P.I.’s testimony was not credible or consistent and that

P.I.’s claims “should not be enough to convince a reasonable person to rely upon it in the most

important of their affairs.” The State asserts that credibility issues are within the purview of the

jury and that Mr. Jennings’s conviction should not be overturned “because the jury chose to believe

the testimony offered by the prosecution.”

{¶26} Having reviewed the record, we cannot conclude that this is an exceptional case

where the jury lost its way by convicting Mr. Jennings of felonious assault. See Otten at 340. As

previously set forth, R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) prohibits “knowingly . . . caus[ing] or attempt[ing] to

cause physical harm to another . . . by means of a deadly weapon . . . .” There is no dispute that

P.I. sustained a cut on her head from a sword. P.I. testified that she is “a hundred percent sure” that 8

Mr. Jennings is the one that struck her on the head with the sword. The officers testified that they

observed blood on Mr. Jennings’s sweater and inside his residence. The officers found the sword

in Mr. Jennings’s kitchen. Ms. Feldenkris, the forensic scientist, testified that P.I.’s blood is on the

sword’s blade and she cannot exclude Mr. Jennings from being a DNA contributor on the sword’s

handle. While Mr. Jennings produced Mr. Mize who prepared the report that P.I. claimed she was

cut by a “female,” that report is inconsistent with all of P.I’s other statements the day of the offense

and her trial testimony. Also, Mr. Mize acknowledged many things were going on as he was taking

down his notes and mistakes do occur.

{¶27} This Court “‘will not overturn a conviction as being against the manifest weight

of the evidence simply because the trier of fact chose to believe the State’s version of events over

another version.’” State v. Tolliver, 2017-Ohio-4214, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Barger,

2016-Ohio-443, ¶ 29 (9th Dist.). Upon our review of the entire record, we conclude that Mr.

Jennings has not shown that the jury, in resolving any conflicts in the evidence, did not clearly lose

its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice requiring a reversal of Mr. Jennings’s felonious

assault conviction. See Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d at 340. This is also not an exceptional case in

which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. See Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387.

Mr. Jennings’s manifest weight of the evidence argument, as asserted in his second assignment of

error, is overruled.

III.

{¶28} For the reasons stated above, Mr. Jennings’s assignments of error are overruled.

The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. 9

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellant.

SCOT STEVENSON FOR THE COURT

FLAGG LANZINGER, P. J. CARR, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

ADAM M. VANHO, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.