State v. Rhoades

2025 Ohio 2358

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 3, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CA-19
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Rhoades, 2025-Ohio-2358.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DARKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2024-CA-19 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 24-CRB-001-0388 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court) LUCAS J. RHOADES : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & Appellant : OPINION :

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on July 3, 2025, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

Tucker, J; Lewis, J.; and Huffman, J. concur.

For the court,

[[Applied Signature]] MICHAEL L. TUCKER, JUDGE -2-

OPINION DARKE C.A. No. 2024-CA-19

STEVEN H. ECKSTEIN, Attorney for Appellant MATTHEW J. PIERRON, Attorney for Appellee

TUCKER, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Lucas J. Rhoades appeals from his conviction, following a

bench trial, for misdemeanor assault. Rhoades asserts his conviction was against the

manifest weight of the evidence because the State failed to disprove his claim that he acted

in defense of another. Rhoades has failed to demonstrate that the trial court lost its way in

rejecting his claim that he acted in defense of another. Accordingly, we affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} This case arose from a physical altercation that occurred between the victim

and various family members and family friends of the victim’s neighbor, Larry Rue, including

Rhoades. Following an investigation, Rhoades was charged by complaint with one count of

assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A). Rhoades filed a notice of his intent to argue that he

had acted in “self-defense, defense of another, or defense of one’s residence.”

{¶ 3} A bench trial was conducted on December 18, 2024. The victim testified that,

on September 14, 2024, he looked out the window of his home and noticed that a fencing

stake had been removed from his yard. The victim retrieved a sledgehammer, walked to

the home of his neighbor, Larry Rue, and knocked on the front door. When Rue opened -3- the door, the victim asked him why the stake had been removed. According to the victim,

Rue indicated that his stepson, Dane Miller, had removed the stake. Both men then walked

to the area on the victim’s property where the stake had been, and the victim hammered the

stake back into the ground. The victim testified that Rue then asked him to come back to

his (Rue’s) property to discuss the matter, and the two men stood on Rue’s driveway

discussing the removal of the stake. According to the victim, neither he nor Rue raised his

voice during the conversation. Further, the victim testified that he was holding the

sledgehammer at his side.

{¶ 4} The victim testified that he and Rue were talking when Miller approached the

victim from behind. Miller walked around the victim and threw a punch, which the victim

was able to deflect. Miller then punched the victim with his other hand. The victim testified

that he was attempting to return to his own yard when Rhoades and several other men

approached him. Rhoades then assaulted the victim, who fell to the ground. Rhoades,

Miller, and several other men hit and kicked the victim. The victim testified that Rhoades

had punched him and kicked him. Eventually, the victim escaped to his garage, and his

wife called 911.

{¶ 5} Versailles police officer Nathan Nolte responded to the scene. After speaking

with the victim, Nolte went to Rue’s property and observed seven or eight men standing in

the driveway area. Nolte spoke to the group and was told that the victim had been yelling

at Rue and “waving” the sledgehammer in the air. The group also told Nolte that the victim

had been asked to leave the premises and, when he failed to comply, Miller and Rhoades

intervened to protect Rue. Nolte provided witness statement forms to the individuals, but

no one filed a statement. Nolte photographed the victim’s injuries. The photographs

depicted scratch marks on the back of the victim’s neck, abrasions to his elbow, an -4- abrasion/cut to his knee, a bloody hand, and a ripped-out fingernail.

{¶ 6} Rue testified that he and the victim had had an ongoing dispute over their

respective property lines. On the day of the assault, Rue responded to a knock on his front

door and encountered the victim, who was upset and carrying a hammer. Rue

accompanied the victim to his property and watched him hammer a stake back into the

ground. Rue testified that he wanted to calm the victim, so he asked him to return to Rue’s

property to sit and talk, but the victim refused to sit down. According to Rue, the victim

stated that he was “fucking pissed” and began bunching his fists. At that point, Miller

approached the two men, placed a hand on the victim’s shoulder, and told the victim to leave

Rue’s property. Miller and the victim then began fighting, at which point Rhoades

intervened to stop the fight. Rue stated that Rhoades “turned” the victim, who then fell.

Rue testified that Rhoades did “strike” the victim, but he was merely trying to protect Miller.

{¶ 7} Rhoades testified that he arrived at Rue’s home and observed the victim yelling

at Rue while brandishing a hammer. According to Rhoades, Miller put his hand on the

victim’s shoulder and told him to leave. The victim then swung his hammer and hit Miller

on the arm1; Rhoades then grabbed the victim by the neck and “threw him” toward his own

property. The victim fell and struck his hand on concrete. Rhoades stated that he did not

think he had hit the victim, “But, I mean, I could have whenever I tried to grab him. I could

see maybe why he would have thought I would, I did.” Tr. 80. Rhoades testified that he

had not intended to harm the victim and was merely “trying to deescalate the situation and

make sure [Rue] wasn’t hurt.” Tr. 80.

{¶ 8} The court found Rhoades guilty of assault and sentenced him to a jail term of

1 On cross-examination, Rhoades testified that Miller did not react to the hammer blow and did not appear to be hurt. -5- 90 days, of which 85 were suspended. Rhoades filed a motion to stay the sentence

pending appeal, which the trial court denied. Rhoades appeals.

II. Manifest Weight

{¶ 9} Rhoades’s sole assignment of error states:

THE GUILTY VERDICT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF

THE EVIDENCE AS THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S PROOF OF

DEFENSE OF OTHERS WAS NOT OVERCOME BY THE STATE BEYOND

A REASONABLE DOUBT.

{¶ 10} Rhoades contends the evidence demonstrated that he acted in defense of

another and, given this, his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Rhoades correctly points out that a manifest weight of the evidence standard of review

applies to an argument that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a

defendant did not act in self-defense or, as here, defense of another. See State v.

Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26.

{¶ 11} 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 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 (1997). A judgment 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. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175

(1st Dist. 1983). -6- {¶ 12} Although a manifest weight of the evidence review does require an appellate

court to evaluate credibility, the determination of witness credibility is primarily for the trier of

fact to decide. State v. Baker, 2020-Ohio-2882, ¶ 30 (12th Dist.), citing State v. DeHass,

10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. “Because the factfinder . . . has

the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, the cautious exercise of the discretionary

power of a court of appeals to find that a judgment is against the manifest weight of the

evidence requires that 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

witness.” State v. Lawson, 1997 WL 476684, *4 (2d Dist. Aug. 22, 1997).

{¶ 13} Rhoades was convicted of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), which states

that “[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to

another's unborn.” “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). “Physical harm” is defined as “any injury, illness, or

other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(3).

A victim's testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction for assault in violation of R.C.

2903.13(A) if that testimony establishes all the elements of the offense. Columbus v.

McDaniel, 2010-Ohio-3744, ¶ 18 (10th Dist.).

{¶ 14} Under appropriate circumstances, one may use necessary force to defend

another against an assault. A defendant who asserts defense of another “stands in the

shoes of the person he aids. . . .” State v. Kleekamp, 2010-Ohio-1906, ¶ 51 (2d Dist.),

quoting State v. Wilson, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 38 (2d Dist.). As such, “[o]ne who acts in

defense of another must meet the criteria for self-defense.” Id., quoting Wilson at ¶ 38. -7- {¶ 15} Self-defense involving the use of non-deadly force requires evidence that: (1)

the defendant was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the altercation; (2) the

defendant had reasonable grounds to believe and an honest belief, even if mistaken, that

the defendant was in imminent danger of bodily harm; and (3) the only means of protecting

himself or herself from that danger was by the use of force not likely to cause death or great

bodily harm. State v. Coleman, 2018-Ohio-1951, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.). The State has the

burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant did not act in defense of

another. State v. Gloff, 2020-Ohio-3143, ¶ 3 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 16} Self-defense claims generally involve an evaluation of witness credibility.

State v. Campbell, 2024-Ohio-1693, ¶ 32 (8th Dist.). The trial court, as the finder of fact, is

free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of each witness appearing before it.” State

v. Nolan, 2023-Ohio-92, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.). Although Rue and Rhoades testified that the victim

had been at fault, the trial court was free to reject this testimony and to instead believe the

victim’s version of the events. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one

of the syllabus. As stated above, the victim testified that he had not been yelling,

brandishing the hammer, or acting in a threatening manner when he spoke to Rue; he was

merely standing and speaking with Rue when he was attacked by Miller. He further testified

that he had been trying to escape when Rhoades subsequently attacked him. On this

record, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Rhoades did not have

reasonable grounds to believe that his conduct was necessary to protect Rue or Miller.

“This Court will not overturn the trial court's verdict on a manifest weight of the evidence

challenge only because the trier of fact chose to believe certain witness testimony over the

testimony of others.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Williams, 2023-Ohio-1903, ¶ 32 (8th

Dist.). -8- {¶ 17} We cannot conclude that the trial court’s rejection of Rhoades’s defense of

another claim was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the

assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 18} Rhoades’ sole assignment of error being overruled, the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

.............

LEWIS, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.