[Cite as State v. Marcum, 2025-Ohio-1122.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2024-05-072
: OPINION - vs - 3/31/2025 :
JACOB MARCUM, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT Case No. CRB2400511
Antoinette M. Dillard, City of Hamilton Assistant Law Director, for appellee.
Christopher P. Frederick, for appellant.
HENDRICKSON, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jacob Marcum, appeals from his conviction in the Hamilton
Municipal Court for obstructing official business. For the reasons discussed below, we
affirm his conviction.
{¶ 2} On February 22, 2024, appellant was charged by complaint with one count
of obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31, a misdemeanor of the second
degree. Appellant entered a not guilty plea, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. Butler CA2024-05-072
{¶ 3} City of Hamilton Police Officer William Feck was the state's sole witness.
Officer Feck testified that on February 22, 2024, he and other officers were dispatched to
a home on Hooven Avenue in Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio in response to a 9-1-1 hang-
up call. Once on scene, Officer Feck and the other officers observed through the home's
windows that appellant, appellant's wife, Oumou Mhaimid, and two young children were
inside the home. Officer Feck could hear arguing occurring inside the home. Officer Feck
and his fellow officers tried to gain entry to the home to determine whether someone was
in need of aid. The officers repeatedly knocked on the home's front and back doors and
gave verbal commands for the occupants to open the door. On at least two occasions,
Mhaimid approached the door as if to open it. However, each time she approached the
door, Officer Feck heard a male inside the home raise his voice. Though Officer Feck
could not make out the words the male voice was shouting, the shouting caused the
female to retreat from the door without opening it. Officer Feck testified that his inability
to get inside the home hampered or impeded the performance of his duties as he was
unable to verify if any of the home's occupants were injured or being held against their
will.
{¶ 4} Officer Feck and his fellow officers briefly spoke with appellant and Mhaimid
through a cracked window on the side of the house. However, neither individual would
comply with demands to open the front door or back door. Eventually, nearly 20 minutes
after Officer Feck and his fellow officers arrived on scene, the officers broke down a door
to gain entry to the home. At that time, appellant was arrested for obstructing official
business.
{¶ 5} Officer Feck was wearing a body camera at the time of the incident.
Recorded footage from his body camera was admitted into evidence without objection.
{¶ 6} Mhaimid testified on behalf of appellant's defense. Mhaimid claimed that
-2- Butler CA2024-05-072
she had accidentally called 9-1-1. When the officers responded to her home, she claimed
she did not answer the door because she was not dressed. Mhamid denied that appellant
told her not to open the door to the officers.
{¶ 7} The trial court took the matter under advisement. On May 17, 2024, the trial
court found appellant guilty of obstructing official business. In finding appellant guilty, the
court stated the following:
I took the matter under advisement. I went back and I listened to all the testimony, the audio recording of the testimony from the trial. And I reviewed the video evidence in the case, which was from the officer's body worn camera, which was admitted into evidence in this case.
When the police arrived th[e] day of this incident, from the outside they could still hear the yelling and arguing going on between the Defendant and his wife who had made the 9-1-1 call.
It wasn't clear whether she or her child or children were safe, because the Defendant would not open the door for the police to enter. And it was clear from the video evidence that the Defendant was refusing to let his wife open the door.
...
The wife's testimony in the case was clearly an attempt at trial to paint a different picture from what the incident is as shown on the video. Where on the video she is clearly starting to open the door and she stops when the Defendant yells at her.
In this case, the Defendant's purpose, and he achieved it, was to delay, impede and impair the police from finding out whether someone was injured in this house and needed assistance.
And because of that, I'm finding him to be guilty.
The court proceeded to impose a sentence consisting of 90 days in jail, with 60 days
suspended, two years of community control, and a fine of $300.
{¶ 8} Appellant appealed his conviction, raising the following as his sole
-3- Butler CA2024-05-072
assignment of error:
{¶ 9} [APPELLANT'S] CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 10} Appellant argues the trial court erred in convicting him of obstructing official
business as the weight of the evidence did not demonstrate that he "committed an
affirmative act with purpose to impede police officers responding to a 911 call at his
residence." Relying on Mhaimid's testimony, appellant argues Mhaimid personally made
the decision, without any influence or direction from him, not to open the door for the
officers.
{¶ 11} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge examines the "inclination of the
greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue
rather than the other." State v. Barnett, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.). To determine
whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court
must look at the entire trial record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences,
consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the 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. Graham, 2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66 (12th Dist.). "While appellate review includes the
responsibility to consider the credibility of witnesses and weight given to the evidence,
'these issues are primarily matters for the trier of fact to decide.'" State v. Barnes, 2011-
Ohio-5226, ¶ 81 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Walker, 2007-Ohio-911, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.).
An appellate court, therefore, will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of the
evidence only in extraordinary circumstances to correct a manifest injustice when the
evidence presented at trial weighs heavily in favor of acquittal. Id., citing Thompkins, 78
Ohio St.3d at 387.
-4- Butler CA2024-05-072
{¶ 12} Appellant was convicted of obstructing official business in violation of R.C.
2921.31(A), which provides that "[n]o person, without privilege to do so and with purpose
to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act
within the public official's official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a
public official in the performance of the public official's lawful duties." A person acts
purposely "when it is the person's specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Marcum, 2025-Ohio-1122.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2024-05-072
: OPINION - vs - 3/31/2025 :
JACOB MARCUM, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT Case No. CRB2400511
Antoinette M. Dillard, City of Hamilton Assistant Law Director, for appellee.
Christopher P. Frederick, for appellant.
HENDRICKSON, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jacob Marcum, appeals from his conviction in the Hamilton
Municipal Court for obstructing official business. For the reasons discussed below, we
affirm his conviction.
{¶ 2} On February 22, 2024, appellant was charged by complaint with one count
of obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31, a misdemeanor of the second
degree. Appellant entered a not guilty plea, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. Butler CA2024-05-072
{¶ 3} City of Hamilton Police Officer William Feck was the state's sole witness.
Officer Feck testified that on February 22, 2024, he and other officers were dispatched to
a home on Hooven Avenue in Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio in response to a 9-1-1 hang-
up call. Once on scene, Officer Feck and the other officers observed through the home's
windows that appellant, appellant's wife, Oumou Mhaimid, and two young children were
inside the home. Officer Feck could hear arguing occurring inside the home. Officer Feck
and his fellow officers tried to gain entry to the home to determine whether someone was
in need of aid. The officers repeatedly knocked on the home's front and back doors and
gave verbal commands for the occupants to open the door. On at least two occasions,
Mhaimid approached the door as if to open it. However, each time she approached the
door, Officer Feck heard a male inside the home raise his voice. Though Officer Feck
could not make out the words the male voice was shouting, the shouting caused the
female to retreat from the door without opening it. Officer Feck testified that his inability
to get inside the home hampered or impeded the performance of his duties as he was
unable to verify if any of the home's occupants were injured or being held against their
will.
{¶ 4} Officer Feck and his fellow officers briefly spoke with appellant and Mhaimid
through a cracked window on the side of the house. However, neither individual would
comply with demands to open the front door or back door. Eventually, nearly 20 minutes
after Officer Feck and his fellow officers arrived on scene, the officers broke down a door
to gain entry to the home. At that time, appellant was arrested for obstructing official
business.
{¶ 5} Officer Feck was wearing a body camera at the time of the incident.
Recorded footage from his body camera was admitted into evidence without objection.
{¶ 6} Mhaimid testified on behalf of appellant's defense. Mhaimid claimed that
-2- Butler CA2024-05-072
she had accidentally called 9-1-1. When the officers responded to her home, she claimed
she did not answer the door because she was not dressed. Mhamid denied that appellant
told her not to open the door to the officers.
{¶ 7} The trial court took the matter under advisement. On May 17, 2024, the trial
court found appellant guilty of obstructing official business. In finding appellant guilty, the
court stated the following:
I took the matter under advisement. I went back and I listened to all the testimony, the audio recording of the testimony from the trial. And I reviewed the video evidence in the case, which was from the officer's body worn camera, which was admitted into evidence in this case.
When the police arrived th[e] day of this incident, from the outside they could still hear the yelling and arguing going on between the Defendant and his wife who had made the 9-1-1 call.
It wasn't clear whether she or her child or children were safe, because the Defendant would not open the door for the police to enter. And it was clear from the video evidence that the Defendant was refusing to let his wife open the door.
...
The wife's testimony in the case was clearly an attempt at trial to paint a different picture from what the incident is as shown on the video. Where on the video she is clearly starting to open the door and she stops when the Defendant yells at her.
In this case, the Defendant's purpose, and he achieved it, was to delay, impede and impair the police from finding out whether someone was injured in this house and needed assistance.
And because of that, I'm finding him to be guilty.
The court proceeded to impose a sentence consisting of 90 days in jail, with 60 days
suspended, two years of community control, and a fine of $300.
{¶ 8} Appellant appealed his conviction, raising the following as his sole
-3- Butler CA2024-05-072
assignment of error:
{¶ 9} [APPELLANT'S] CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 10} Appellant argues the trial court erred in convicting him of obstructing official
business as the weight of the evidence did not demonstrate that he "committed an
affirmative act with purpose to impede police officers responding to a 911 call at his
residence." Relying on Mhaimid's testimony, appellant argues Mhaimid personally made
the decision, without any influence or direction from him, not to open the door for the
officers.
{¶ 11} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge examines the "inclination of the
greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue
rather than the other." State v. Barnett, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.). To determine
whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court
must look at the entire trial record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences,
consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the 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. Graham, 2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66 (12th Dist.). "While appellate review includes the
responsibility to consider the credibility of witnesses and weight given to the evidence,
'these issues are primarily matters for the trier of fact to decide.'" State v. Barnes, 2011-
Ohio-5226, ¶ 81 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Walker, 2007-Ohio-911, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.).
An appellate court, therefore, will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of the
evidence only in extraordinary circumstances to correct a manifest injustice when the
evidence presented at trial weighs heavily in favor of acquittal. Id., citing Thompkins, 78
Ohio St.3d at 387.
-4- Butler CA2024-05-072
{¶ 12} Appellant was convicted of obstructing official business in violation of R.C.
2921.31(A), which provides that "[n]o person, without privilege to do so and with purpose
to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act
within the public official's official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a
public official in the performance of the public official's lawful duties." A person acts
purposely "when it is the person's specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when the
gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of what
the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is the offender's specific intention to engage
in conduct of that nature." R.C. 2901.22(A).
{¶ 13} "The offense of obstructing official business generally requires 'the doing of
some affirmative act by a defendant.'" State v. Jones, 2016-Ohio-67, ¶ 20 (12th Dist.),
quoting State v. King, 2007-Ohio-335, ¶ 58 (3d Dist.). "However, failing to act may still
constitute obstruction of official business in certain circumstances." State v. Florence,
2014-Ohio-167, ¶ 30 (12th Dist.). "The proper focus in a prosecution for obstructing official
business is on the defendant's conduct, verbal or physical, and its effect on the public
official's ability to perform his lawful duties." State v. Standifer, 2012-Ohio-3132, ¶ 28 (12th
Dist.). "[T]he state does not need to prove that the defendant successfully prevented an
officer from performing his or her duties." State v. Alexander, 2017-Ohio-5507, ¶ 21 (12th
Dist.). Rather, "[t]he state need only present evidence demonstrating a defendant
interfered with the performance of an official duty and made it more difficult to perform."
State v. Schwartz, 2023-Ohio-1424, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 14} Having thoroughly reviewed the record in the present case, we find that
appellant's conviction for obstructing official business is not against the manifest weight
of the evidence. Officer Feck's testimony and footage from his body camera demonstrated
that law enforcement were responding to a 9-1-1 hang-up call. Once on the scene, Officer
-5- Butler CA2024-05-072
Feck heard arguing occurring inside the home. Officer Feck testified it was the Hamilton
Police Department's policy to investigate a 9-1-1 hang-up call to make sure there were
no injuries or that someone was not being held against his or her will. In an effort to verify
that no one inside appellant's home needed aid, Officer Feck and his fellow officers
knocked on the door and asked appellant and Mhaimid to open the door. On at least two
occasions, Mhaimid approached the door as if to open it. However, each time she
approached the door, appellant shouted something at her that caused her to retreat from
the door without opening it. Appellant's refusal to open the door and his unwillingness to
allow Mhaimid to open the door delayed the officers' investigation and resulted in the
officers having to breach the home more than 20 minutes after their arrival. As Officer
Feck explained at trial, his inability to get inside the home hampered or impeded the
performance of his duties as he was unable to verify if any of the home's occupants were
injured. Accord State v. Jones, 2016-Ohio-67 (12th Dist.) (finding a defendant's conviction
for obstructing official business was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where
officers were investigating a 9-1-1 pocket dial and the defendant refused to cooperate or
allow officers into his residence to investigate whether an emergency existed).
{¶ 15} Mhaimid's testimony that appellant did not instruct her not to open the door
and that she chose not to open the door on her own accord because she was not dressed
is contradicted by Officer Feck's testimony and his body camera footage. Through the
windowpane of appellant's back door, Officer Feck's body camera captured a dressed
Mhaimid approaching the door, reaching forward as if to open the door, and then
retreating when appellant yelled something at her. "[W]hen conflicting evidence is
presented at trial, a conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply
because the trier of fact believed the prosecution testimony." State v. Lunsford, 2011-
Ohio-6529, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.). "[T]he trial court, as the trier of fact, is best able to view
-6- Butler CA2024-05-072
witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections in weighing
witness credibility . . . ." State v. Burkhead, 2009-Ohio-4466, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). Here, the
trial court did not find Mhamid to be a credible witness, noting that her testimony was
"clearly an attempt . . . to paint a different picture from what the incident is as shown on
the video."
{¶ 16} Accordingly, based on the evidence presented at trial, we find that
appellant's conviction for obstructing official business was not against the manifest weight
of the evidence. The weight of the evidence demonstrated that appellant obstructed and
delayed officers in their duty to fully investigate a 9-1-1 hang-up call. Appellant's sole
assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶ 17} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
-7-