[Cite as State v. Little, 2020-Ohio-2897.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2019-T-0067 - vs - :
TRAYVON D. LITTLE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. Case No. 2018 CR 01059.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor; Ashleigh Musick and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant Prosecutors, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Stephen A. Turner, Turner, May & Shepherd, 185 High Street, N.E., Warren, OH 44481 (For Defendant-Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Trayvon D. Little (“Little”), appeals a judgment in the Trumbull
County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him, following a jury trial, to 11 months in
prison, to be served consecutively to an unrelated term he was already serving at the
time of the offense. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
{¶2} On November 27, 2018, Little was indicted on one count of Harassment
with a Bodily Substance, a felony of the fifth degree in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A)&(D). At the time of the events leading to the indictment, Little was an inmate at Trumbull
Correctional Institution (“the Prison”) serving a prison term for an unrelated conviction in
Cuyahoga County. The state of Ohio alleged that Little spat in the face of corrections
officer Rachel Blevins following a confrontation. Little pled not guilty to the charge, and
a jury trial lasting two days was held beginning on August 20, 2019.
{¶3} The state called two witnesses: (1) the corrections officer that was the
alleged victim of the offense (“Blevins”), and (2) the corrections officer working with her
at the time of the offense (“Watson”). Blevins testified in detail about the escalating
tensions at the Prison leading to her confrontation with Little, the spitting by Little, and
the medical treatment she sought immediately thereafter. The state also presented
video footage of the incident filmed by a fishbowl lens at the Prison overseeing the
entire common area, which Blevins authenticated and narrated for the jury. Watson,
who did not directly witness the spitting itself, testified consistently with Blevins’ account
of the events preceding and subsequent to the confrontation with Little.
{¶4} At the end of the state’s case-in-chief, the defense made an oral motion
for acquittal under Criminal Rule 29, which was denied. The defense then rested
without presenting any witnesses. After deliberations, the jury found Little guilty, and a
sentence of 11 months was imposed, to be served consecutively to the sentence Little
was already serving at the time of the incident.
{¶5} Little filed a timely notice of appeal and raises two assignments of error for
our review. We consider the assignments of error out of order.
{¶6} Little’s second assignment of error states:
2 THE JURY’S VERDICT OF GUILTY ON THE COUNT ONE OF HARASSMENT WITH A BODILY SUBSTANCE WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶7} “In determining whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the
evidence, ‘* * *[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. * * *’” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Schlee, 11th Dist. Lake No. 93-L-082, 1994 WL
738452, *5 (Dec. 23, 1994), quoting State v. Davis, 49 Ohio App.3d 109, 113 (8th
Dist.1988). A judgment of a trial court 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.’” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).
{¶8} “Weight of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of
credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the
other.’” Id. (emphasis sic), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1594 (6th Ed.1990).
‘The 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. 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 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
3 with the factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.” Id., quoting Tibbs v. Florida,
457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982).
{¶9} Little was charged with Harassment with a Bodily Substance under R.C.
2921.38(A)&(D), which state:
(A) No person who is confined in a detention facility, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm another person, shall cause or attempt to cause the other person to come into contact with blood, semen, urine, feces, or another bodily substance by throwing the bodily substance at the other person, by expelling the bodily substance upon the other person, or in any other manner. * * *
(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of harassment with a bodily substance. A violation of division (A) or (B) of this section is a felony of the fifth degree. * * *
{¶10} Little challenges the assertion that he acted with the requisite intent to
constitute a violation of R.C. 2921.38; however, the jury was presented with evidence
and testimony from which they could reasonably conclude that Little acted with intent to
“harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm” Blevins in the present matter. Both witnesses
testified that the inmates, including Little, were angry with Blevins for enforcing the rules
imposed at the Prison immediately before the confrontation with Little. Blevins testified
from her experience as a corrections officer that inmates showed less respect to female
corrections officers in comparison to their male counterparts. She referred to multiple
statements made by Little indicating his lack of respect for her, specifically, based on
her gender. Blevins and Watson also both testified, based on their experience as
corrections officers, as to the common motive of inmates to create a distraction in the
common area in order to allow criminal conduct to occur undetected. Here, the video
surveillance footage showed an unidentified inmate stealing an object from a desk
4 immediately after the alleged spitting by Little, which corroborates Blevins’ testimony
that this was Little’s motive and supports a finding of intent.
{¶11} Further, the video surveillance footage presented to the jury supports the
finding of guilt. It showed Little approaching Blevins, engaging in dialogue, then
returning a moment later before being escorted from the room by Blevins and Watson.
The video is consistent with Blevins’ written report of the incident—which was presented
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Little, 2020-Ohio-2897.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2019-T-0067 - vs - :
TRAYVON D. LITTLE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. Case No. 2018 CR 01059.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor; Ashleigh Musick and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant Prosecutors, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Stephen A. Turner, Turner, May & Shepherd, 185 High Street, N.E., Warren, OH 44481 (For Defendant-Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Trayvon D. Little (“Little”), appeals a judgment in the Trumbull
County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him, following a jury trial, to 11 months in
prison, to be served consecutively to an unrelated term he was already serving at the
time of the offense. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
{¶2} On November 27, 2018, Little was indicted on one count of Harassment
with a Bodily Substance, a felony of the fifth degree in violation of R.C. 2921.38(A)&(D). At the time of the events leading to the indictment, Little was an inmate at Trumbull
Correctional Institution (“the Prison”) serving a prison term for an unrelated conviction in
Cuyahoga County. The state of Ohio alleged that Little spat in the face of corrections
officer Rachel Blevins following a confrontation. Little pled not guilty to the charge, and
a jury trial lasting two days was held beginning on August 20, 2019.
{¶3} The state called two witnesses: (1) the corrections officer that was the
alleged victim of the offense (“Blevins”), and (2) the corrections officer working with her
at the time of the offense (“Watson”). Blevins testified in detail about the escalating
tensions at the Prison leading to her confrontation with Little, the spitting by Little, and
the medical treatment she sought immediately thereafter. The state also presented
video footage of the incident filmed by a fishbowl lens at the Prison overseeing the
entire common area, which Blevins authenticated and narrated for the jury. Watson,
who did not directly witness the spitting itself, testified consistently with Blevins’ account
of the events preceding and subsequent to the confrontation with Little.
{¶4} At the end of the state’s case-in-chief, the defense made an oral motion
for acquittal under Criminal Rule 29, which was denied. The defense then rested
without presenting any witnesses. After deliberations, the jury found Little guilty, and a
sentence of 11 months was imposed, to be served consecutively to the sentence Little
was already serving at the time of the incident.
{¶5} Little filed a timely notice of appeal and raises two assignments of error for
our review. We consider the assignments of error out of order.
{¶6} Little’s second assignment of error states:
2 THE JURY’S VERDICT OF GUILTY ON THE COUNT ONE OF HARASSMENT WITH A BODILY SUBSTANCE WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶7} “In determining whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the
evidence, ‘* * *[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. * * *’” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Schlee, 11th Dist. Lake No. 93-L-082, 1994 WL
738452, *5 (Dec. 23, 1994), quoting State v. Davis, 49 Ohio App.3d 109, 113 (8th
Dist.1988). A judgment of a trial court 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.’” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).
{¶8} “Weight of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of
credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the
other.’” Id. (emphasis sic), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1594 (6th Ed.1990).
‘The 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. 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 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
3 with the factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.” Id., quoting Tibbs v. Florida,
457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982).
{¶9} Little was charged with Harassment with a Bodily Substance under R.C.
2921.38(A)&(D), which state:
(A) No person who is confined in a detention facility, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm another person, shall cause or attempt to cause the other person to come into contact with blood, semen, urine, feces, or another bodily substance by throwing the bodily substance at the other person, by expelling the bodily substance upon the other person, or in any other manner. * * *
(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of harassment with a bodily substance. A violation of division (A) or (B) of this section is a felony of the fifth degree. * * *
{¶10} Little challenges the assertion that he acted with the requisite intent to
constitute a violation of R.C. 2921.38; however, the jury was presented with evidence
and testimony from which they could reasonably conclude that Little acted with intent to
“harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm” Blevins in the present matter. Both witnesses
testified that the inmates, including Little, were angry with Blevins for enforcing the rules
imposed at the Prison immediately before the confrontation with Little. Blevins testified
from her experience as a corrections officer that inmates showed less respect to female
corrections officers in comparison to their male counterparts. She referred to multiple
statements made by Little indicating his lack of respect for her, specifically, based on
her gender. Blevins and Watson also both testified, based on their experience as
corrections officers, as to the common motive of inmates to create a distraction in the
common area in order to allow criminal conduct to occur undetected. Here, the video
surveillance footage showed an unidentified inmate stealing an object from a desk
4 immediately after the alleged spitting by Little, which corroborates Blevins’ testimony
that this was Little’s motive and supports a finding of intent.
{¶11} Further, the video surveillance footage presented to the jury supports the
finding of guilt. It showed Little approaching Blevins, engaging in dialogue, then
returning a moment later before being escorted from the room by Blevins and Watson.
The video is consistent with Blevins’ written report of the incident—which was presented
to the jury—and also with the testimony she offered at trial. Testimony from Watson
was also consistent with the events he observed both before and immediately following
the confrontation by Little. Based on this testimony and evidence, the jury reasonably
concluded that Little spat in Blevins’ face with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm
her following escalating tensions and a verbal confrontation between the two. The facts
and evidence presented in the matter sub judice do not support a finding that 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.
{¶12} Little’s second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶13} Little’s first assignment of error states:
THE STATE FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE JURY’S VERDICT.
{¶14} “A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a question of law as
to whether the prosecution met its burden of production at trial.” State v. Bernard, 11th
Dist. Ashtabula No. 2016-A-0063, 2018-Ohio-351, ¶56, citing Thompkins, supra, at 390
and State v. Windle, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2010-L-033, 2011-Ohio-4171, ¶25. “‘In
reviewing the record for sufficiency, “[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
5 found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”’” Id.,
quoting State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 113 (1997), quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio
St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307 (1979); see also State v. Troisi, 179 Ohio App.3d 326, 2008-Ohio-6062, ¶9 (11th
Dist.). Where there is insufficient evidence, a conviction will be vacated. Id. at ¶55,
citing State v. Rose, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2014-L-086, 2015-Ohio-2607, ¶32.
{¶15} A finding that a judgment is not against the manifest weight of the
evidence necessarily means the judgment is supported by sufficient evidence. State v.
Arcaro, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2012-A-0028, 2013-Ohio-1842, ¶32. Having
determined that Little’s conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, it
follows that it is supported by sufficient evidence.
{¶16} Little’s first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶17} The judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
concur.