[Cite as State v. Owings, 2014-Ohio-3953.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 26075 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 13-CRB-9122 v. : : GEORGE A. OWINGS : (Criminal Appeal from : (Dayton Municipal Court) Defendant-Appellant : :
........... OPINION Rendered on the 12th day of September , 2014. ...........
JOHN J. DANISH, Atty. Reg. #0046639, and STEPHANIE L. COOK, Atty. Reg. #0067101, by ANDREW D. SEXTON, Atty. Reg. #0070892, Dayton Municipal Prosecutor’s Office, 335 West Third Street, Room 372, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
DAVID M. MORRISON, Atty. Reg. #0087487, Post Office Box 750383, Dayton, Ohio 45475 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} George A. Owings appeals from his conviction and sentence on one count of
aggravated menacing, a first-degree misdemeanor.
{¶ 2} In his sole assignment of error, Owings contends his conviction is against the
manifest weight of the evidence. [Cite as State v. Owings, 2014-Ohio-3953.] {¶ 3} The record reflects that Owings shared a residence with Mariah Dorsey and their
two young children. On the morning of September 18, 2013, Dorsey’s mother, Mary Bates,
arrived at the residence to jump-start Dorsey’s car and to pick up the children. At trial, Bates
testified that she encountered Owings, who was standing at the front door inside the residence
screaming at her. Bates stated that she returned to her car. She then saw Owings come through
the front door and point a gun toward her car. According to Bates, she was in the car at the time,
along with her two grandchildren, and she feared that Owings was going to shoot her. (Tr. at 7-9).
Bates testified that she remained in her vehicle and called the police. (Id. at 10).
{¶ 4} Mariah Dorsey also testified for the prosecution. Dorsey stated that she had been
arguing with Owings prior to Bates’s arrival. Dorsey recalled Bates stepping inside the residence
and exchanging words with Owings after arriving. (Id. at 26-27). According to Dorsey, she and
her mother then exited the house. Dorsey proceeded to put her youngest child in the back seat of
Bates’s car as Bates and Owings continued arguing. (Id. at 28-29). Dorsey could not see what
Owings was doing because her back was turned toward him. As a result, she was not in a position
to see whether he had a gun pointed at Bates’s car. (Id. at 29-30). Dorsey confirmed, however,
that a gun had been present in the house the previous night. (Id. at 30).
{¶ 5} The State’s final witness was police officer Timothy Liddy. He testified that he
arrived with other officers approximately four minutes after being dispatched on a report of a
complainant being threatened with a handgun. (Id. at 37-38). Liddy described Bates as being
“hysterical” when he met her at the scene. (Id. at 39). He explained: “She was crying when we
arrived; she was walking down the sidewalk crying stating that she had been threatened; that
somebody was going to shoot her and she was shaking really bad, hard to understand, I had to get
her calmed down.” (Id.). On cross examination, Liddy agreed his police report indicated that 3
Bates had claimed to be inside the living room when Owings pulled a gun on her and that she had
remained there when Owings exited the front door. (Id. at 41).
{¶ 6} The only other witness was Owings, who testified in his own defense. Owings
admitted arguing with Dorsey and Bates on the morning in question. He testified that he then
watched the two women from the front door while they were in the driveway. (Id. at 43-45). He
denied retrieving or possessing a gun. (Id. at 45, 47). According to Owings, he did not “stay
around for the police to come.” (Id. at 47). Instead, he left out the back door. (Id.).
{¶ 7} Based on the evidence presented, the trial court found Owings guilty of
aggravated menacing. It sentenced him to community control and ordered him to pay a $200 fine
and court costs. This appeal followed.1
{¶ 8} As set forth above, Owings’s assignment of error challenges the weight of the
evidence to sustain his conviction. He contends inconsistencies in Bates’s testimony and
discrepancies between her testimony and Dorsey’s rendered Bates’s allegations unworthy of
belief. Specifically, he claims inconsistencies and discrepancies existed with regard to where
Bates parked, how the two children got into her car, where she was when she allegedly saw him
with a gun, whether she went inside the house, and when he left the house. Owings also stresses
that Bates was the only witness who testified about him brandishing a firearm, which was not
found at the scene.
{¶ 9} When a conviction is challenged on appeal as being against the weight of the
evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable
1 The trial court’s docket reflects that Owings’s community control has been terminated. His misdemeanor appeal is not moot, however, because the trial court’s docket reflects that his fine remains unpaid. Therefore, it cannot be said that he voluntarily has completed his sentence. 4
inferences, consider witness credibility, 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. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d
380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). In a manifest-weight analysis, the credibility of the witnesses
and the weight to be given to their testimony are primarily for the trier of facts to resolve. State v.
DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). “Because the factfinder, be it the jury, or, *
* * the trial judge, has the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, the cautious exercise of
discretionary power of a court of appeals to find that a judgment is against the manifest weight of
the evidence requires that a substantial deference be extended to the factfinder’s determinations
of credibility. The decision whether, and to what extent, to credit the testimony of particular
witnesses is within the peculiar competence of the factfinder, who has seen and heard the
witnesses.” State v. Lawson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 16288, 1997 WL 477684, *5 (Aug. 22,
1997).
{¶ 10} With the foregoing standard in mind, we conclude that Owings’s conviction is
not against the manifest weight of the evidence. He was found guilty of violating R.C.
2903.21(A), which provides: “No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the
offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person[.]” Bates’s
testimony undoubtedly supported a conviction under this statute. See, e.g., State v. El-Hardan, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 24293, 2011-Ohio-4453, ¶ 43, quoting State v. Brooks, 44 Ohio St.3d
185, 192, 542 N.E.2d 636 (1989) (recognizing that pointing a deadly weapon at someone justifies
an aggravated menacing conviction). With regard to the credibility of Bates’s testimony, the trial
court stated: “While I was troubled by some of the inconsistencies in Miss Bates’ testimony, * * 5
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Owings, 2014-Ohio-3953.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 26075 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 13-CRB-9122 v. : : GEORGE A. OWINGS : (Criminal Appeal from : (Dayton Municipal Court) Defendant-Appellant : :
........... OPINION Rendered on the 12th day of September , 2014. ...........
JOHN J. DANISH, Atty. Reg. #0046639, and STEPHANIE L. COOK, Atty. Reg. #0067101, by ANDREW D. SEXTON, Atty. Reg. #0070892, Dayton Municipal Prosecutor’s Office, 335 West Third Street, Room 372, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
DAVID M. MORRISON, Atty. Reg. #0087487, Post Office Box 750383, Dayton, Ohio 45475 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} George A. Owings appeals from his conviction and sentence on one count of
aggravated menacing, a first-degree misdemeanor.
{¶ 2} In his sole assignment of error, Owings contends his conviction is against the
manifest weight of the evidence. [Cite as State v. Owings, 2014-Ohio-3953.] {¶ 3} The record reflects that Owings shared a residence with Mariah Dorsey and their
two young children. On the morning of September 18, 2013, Dorsey’s mother, Mary Bates,
arrived at the residence to jump-start Dorsey’s car and to pick up the children. At trial, Bates
testified that she encountered Owings, who was standing at the front door inside the residence
screaming at her. Bates stated that she returned to her car. She then saw Owings come through
the front door and point a gun toward her car. According to Bates, she was in the car at the time,
along with her two grandchildren, and she feared that Owings was going to shoot her. (Tr. at 7-9).
Bates testified that she remained in her vehicle and called the police. (Id. at 10).
{¶ 4} Mariah Dorsey also testified for the prosecution. Dorsey stated that she had been
arguing with Owings prior to Bates’s arrival. Dorsey recalled Bates stepping inside the residence
and exchanging words with Owings after arriving. (Id. at 26-27). According to Dorsey, she and
her mother then exited the house. Dorsey proceeded to put her youngest child in the back seat of
Bates’s car as Bates and Owings continued arguing. (Id. at 28-29). Dorsey could not see what
Owings was doing because her back was turned toward him. As a result, she was not in a position
to see whether he had a gun pointed at Bates’s car. (Id. at 29-30). Dorsey confirmed, however,
that a gun had been present in the house the previous night. (Id. at 30).
{¶ 5} The State’s final witness was police officer Timothy Liddy. He testified that he
arrived with other officers approximately four minutes after being dispatched on a report of a
complainant being threatened with a handgun. (Id. at 37-38). Liddy described Bates as being
“hysterical” when he met her at the scene. (Id. at 39). He explained: “She was crying when we
arrived; she was walking down the sidewalk crying stating that she had been threatened; that
somebody was going to shoot her and she was shaking really bad, hard to understand, I had to get
her calmed down.” (Id.). On cross examination, Liddy agreed his police report indicated that 3
Bates had claimed to be inside the living room when Owings pulled a gun on her and that she had
remained there when Owings exited the front door. (Id. at 41).
{¶ 6} The only other witness was Owings, who testified in his own defense. Owings
admitted arguing with Dorsey and Bates on the morning in question. He testified that he then
watched the two women from the front door while they were in the driveway. (Id. at 43-45). He
denied retrieving or possessing a gun. (Id. at 45, 47). According to Owings, he did not “stay
around for the police to come.” (Id. at 47). Instead, he left out the back door. (Id.).
{¶ 7} Based on the evidence presented, the trial court found Owings guilty of
aggravated menacing. It sentenced him to community control and ordered him to pay a $200 fine
and court costs. This appeal followed.1
{¶ 8} As set forth above, Owings’s assignment of error challenges the weight of the
evidence to sustain his conviction. He contends inconsistencies in Bates’s testimony and
discrepancies between her testimony and Dorsey’s rendered Bates’s allegations unworthy of
belief. Specifically, he claims inconsistencies and discrepancies existed with regard to where
Bates parked, how the two children got into her car, where she was when she allegedly saw him
with a gun, whether she went inside the house, and when he left the house. Owings also stresses
that Bates was the only witness who testified about him brandishing a firearm, which was not
found at the scene.
{¶ 9} When a conviction is challenged on appeal as being against the weight of the
evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable
1 The trial court’s docket reflects that Owings’s community control has been terminated. His misdemeanor appeal is not moot, however, because the trial court’s docket reflects that his fine remains unpaid. Therefore, it cannot be said that he voluntarily has completed his sentence. 4
inferences, consider witness credibility, 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. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d
380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). In a manifest-weight analysis, the credibility of the witnesses
and the weight to be given to their testimony are primarily for the trier of facts to resolve. State v.
DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). “Because the factfinder, be it the jury, or, *
* * the trial judge, has the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, the cautious exercise of
discretionary power of a court of appeals to find that a judgment is against the manifest weight of
the evidence requires that a substantial deference be extended to the factfinder’s determinations
of credibility. The decision whether, and to what extent, to credit the testimony of particular
witnesses is within the peculiar competence of the factfinder, who has seen and heard the
witnesses.” State v. Lawson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 16288, 1997 WL 477684, *5 (Aug. 22,
1997).
{¶ 10} With the foregoing standard in mind, we conclude that Owings’s conviction is
not against the manifest weight of the evidence. He was found guilty of violating R.C.
2903.21(A), which provides: “No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the
offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person[.]” Bates’s
testimony undoubtedly supported a conviction under this statute. See, e.g., State v. El-Hardan, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 24293, 2011-Ohio-4453, ¶ 43, quoting State v. Brooks, 44 Ohio St.3d
185, 192, 542 N.E.2d 636 (1989) (recognizing that pointing a deadly weapon at someone justifies
an aggravated menacing conviction). With regard to the credibility of Bates’s testimony, the trial
court stated: “While I was troubled by some of the inconsistencies in Miss Bates’ testimony, * * 5
* I do feel that in the significant facts of this case that she was being truthful about Mr. Owings
holding a gun at her and making threats to her so I’m going to find him guilty of the aggravated
menacing.” (Tr. at 52).
{¶ 11} Upon review, we find it appropriate to defer to the trial court’s determination
regarding Bates’s credibility. Although the record reveals some inconsistencies or discrepancies
on the secondary issues cited by Owings, Bates unequivocally testified that he pointed a gun at
her and caused her to fear being shot. This crucial allegation is consistent with Officer Liddy’s
description of Bates as being “hysterical” when she told him about the incident. Bates’s
allegation also is consistent with Owings’s act of fleeing out the back door before police arrived.
We note too that any inconsistencies in her testimony reasonably might be attributed to her
admitted nervousness while testifying. (Tr. at 13). Having reviewed the record, we cannot say the
trial court clearly lost its way in accepting Bates’s testimony that Owings pointed a gun at her and
in finding him guilty of aggravated menacing. The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 12} The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
FROELICH, P.J., and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
John J. Danish / Stephanie L. Cook Andrew D. Sexton David M. Morrison Hon. Edward Utacht (sitting for Judge Carl Sims Henderson)