[Cite as State v. Shareff, 2025-Ohio-4736.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 31233
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE MONEEB O. SHAREFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellant CASE No. CR-2024-01-0001
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: October 15, 2025
HENSAL, Judge.
{¶1} Moneeb Shareff appeals his conviction for domestic violence by the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} According to A.E., the mother of Mr. Shareff’s children, Mr. Shareff agreed to drive
her somewhere on New Years Eve, but he showed up late, which led to an argument between them.
According to two of A.E.’s relatives, when Mr. Shareff dropped A.E. off, she had red marks and
bruises on her arms and face that were not there previously. A.E. told the law enforcement officers
who responded to a 911 call that she got in a fight with Mr. Shareff and that he hit her in the face.
The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Shareff of two counts of domestic violence, one because A.E. was
pregnant at the time of the attack. Following a trial to the bench, the court found that Mr. Shareff
physically harmed A.E. but that he may not have known she was pregnant. It, therefore, found 2
him guilty of one of the counts and sentenced him to three years of community control. Mr. Shareff
has appealed, assigning three errors.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH ON THE RECORD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES LEVIED AGAINST MR. MONEEB O. SHAREFF.
{¶3} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Shareff argues that his conviction is not
supported by sufficient evidence. Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a
question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). In
carrying out this review, our “function . . . is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine
whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the
syllabus. “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.” Id.
{¶4} The court found Mr. Shareff guilty of domestic violence, in violation of Revised
Code Section 2919.25(A). That section provides that “[n]o person shall knowingly cause or
attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member.” Physical harm “means any
injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” R.C.
2901.01(A)(3). The court also found that Mr. Shareff had a similar prior conviction, which made
the offense a felony of the fourth degree under Section 2919.25(D)(3).
{¶5} Mr. Shareff argues that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence
because A.E. testified that the argument they had was only verbal in nature and that he never struck 3
or otherwise harmed her. A.E. initially told law enforcement, however, that Mr. Shareff put her
in a headlock, pulled her hair, scratched her, and hit her in the face during the argument. Two of
A.E.’s relatives noticed what appeared to be injuries to A.E. after she exited Mr. Shareff’s vehicle.
The State presented recordings of A.E.’s conversations with law enforcement and photographs of
her face. Although A.E. recanted her prior statements at trial, we must view the evidence in a light
most favorable to the prosecution. State v. Brown, 2011-Ohio-1041, ¶ 14 (9th Dist.) (“A
conviction is not based on insufficient evidence simply because the witness recants before the
trial.”). Upon review of the record, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to uphold Mr.
Shareff’s conviction. See State v. Whitehouse, 2010-Ohio-587, ¶ 19 (9th Dist.) (upholding
domestic violence conviction based on victim’s initial statements to police and photographs of
bruising on victim). Mr. Shareff’s first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
{¶6} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Shareff argues that his conviction is against
the manifest weight of the evidence. When considering a challenge to the manifest weight of the
evidence, this Court is required to consider the entire record, “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.” State v. Croghan, 2019-Ohio-
3970, ¶ 26 (9th Dist.). 4
{¶7} Mr. Shareff notes that A.E. testified that she is light-skinned and that her face gets
red easily, such as when she has been drinking. A.E. also explained that, when she told officers
that Mr. Shareff and she had been in a fight, she only meant that they argued and not that a physical
altercation occurred. A.E. further explained that she was only testifying because of the threat of
being prosecuted if she did not comply with the subpoena she received. Mr. Shareff also points
out that A.E.’s brother could not remember exactly where he saw bruises on A.E. and that he did
not tell law enforcement on the night of the incident what he allegedly saw.
{¶8} As the trier of fact, the trial court was in the best position to evaluate the credibility
of the testimony and evidence and was free to believe the State's theory of the events and reject
Mr. Shareff’s version, including the testimony of A.E. See State v. Shank, 2013-Ohio-5368, ¶ 29
(9th Dist.). Upon review of the evidence, we cannot say this is the exceptional case where the
evidence weighs heavily against Mr. Shareff’s conviction. Mr. Shareff’s second assignment of
error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPROPERLY APPLYING THE RULES GOVERNING WITNESS LIST[S] UNDER O.C.R. 16(I)(L)(1), RESULTING IN PREJUDICE AGAINST APPELLANT.
{¶9} In his third assignment of error, Mr. Shareff argues that the trial court incorrectly
allowed A.E.’s mother to testify even though she was not on the State’s witness list and was not
present at the scene. According to Mr. Shareff, the court should have prevented A.E.’s mother
from testifying under Criminal Rule 16(I). He also argues that A.E.’s mother’s testimony was
highly prejudicial, and that she may have coerced A.E. into signing a victim statement on the night
of the incident. 5
{¶10} Criminal Rule 16(I) provides that “[e]ach party shall provide to opposing counsel
a written witness list, including names and addresses of any witness it intends to call in its case-
in-chief . . . .” Two days before the trial, the State submitted a witness list that included A.E.’s
mother. At trial, Mr. Shareff did not object to A.E.’s mother testifying, but only to certain
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Shareff, 2025-Ohio-4736.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 31233
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE MONEEB O. SHAREFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellant CASE No. CR-2024-01-0001
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: October 15, 2025
HENSAL, Judge.
{¶1} Moneeb Shareff appeals his conviction for domestic violence by the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} According to A.E., the mother of Mr. Shareff’s children, Mr. Shareff agreed to drive
her somewhere on New Years Eve, but he showed up late, which led to an argument between them.
According to two of A.E.’s relatives, when Mr. Shareff dropped A.E. off, she had red marks and
bruises on her arms and face that were not there previously. A.E. told the law enforcement officers
who responded to a 911 call that she got in a fight with Mr. Shareff and that he hit her in the face.
The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Shareff of two counts of domestic violence, one because A.E. was
pregnant at the time of the attack. Following a trial to the bench, the court found that Mr. Shareff
physically harmed A.E. but that he may not have known she was pregnant. It, therefore, found 2
him guilty of one of the counts and sentenced him to three years of community control. Mr. Shareff
has appealed, assigning three errors.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH ON THE RECORD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES LEVIED AGAINST MR. MONEEB O. SHAREFF.
{¶3} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Shareff argues that his conviction is not
supported by sufficient evidence. Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a
question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). In
carrying out this review, our “function . . . is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine
whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the
syllabus. “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.” Id.
{¶4} The court found Mr. Shareff guilty of domestic violence, in violation of Revised
Code Section 2919.25(A). That section provides that “[n]o person shall knowingly cause or
attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member.” Physical harm “means any
injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” R.C.
2901.01(A)(3). The court also found that Mr. Shareff had a similar prior conviction, which made
the offense a felony of the fourth degree under Section 2919.25(D)(3).
{¶5} Mr. Shareff argues that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence
because A.E. testified that the argument they had was only verbal in nature and that he never struck 3
or otherwise harmed her. A.E. initially told law enforcement, however, that Mr. Shareff put her
in a headlock, pulled her hair, scratched her, and hit her in the face during the argument. Two of
A.E.’s relatives noticed what appeared to be injuries to A.E. after she exited Mr. Shareff’s vehicle.
The State presented recordings of A.E.’s conversations with law enforcement and photographs of
her face. Although A.E. recanted her prior statements at trial, we must view the evidence in a light
most favorable to the prosecution. State v. Brown, 2011-Ohio-1041, ¶ 14 (9th Dist.) (“A
conviction is not based on insufficient evidence simply because the witness recants before the
trial.”). Upon review of the record, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to uphold Mr.
Shareff’s conviction. See State v. Whitehouse, 2010-Ohio-587, ¶ 19 (9th Dist.) (upholding
domestic violence conviction based on victim’s initial statements to police and photographs of
bruising on victim). Mr. Shareff’s first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
{¶6} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Shareff argues that his conviction is against
the manifest weight of the evidence. When considering a challenge to the manifest weight of the
evidence, this Court is required to consider the entire record, “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.” State v. Croghan, 2019-Ohio-
3970, ¶ 26 (9th Dist.). 4
{¶7} Mr. Shareff notes that A.E. testified that she is light-skinned and that her face gets
red easily, such as when she has been drinking. A.E. also explained that, when she told officers
that Mr. Shareff and she had been in a fight, she only meant that they argued and not that a physical
altercation occurred. A.E. further explained that she was only testifying because of the threat of
being prosecuted if she did not comply with the subpoena she received. Mr. Shareff also points
out that A.E.’s brother could not remember exactly where he saw bruises on A.E. and that he did
not tell law enforcement on the night of the incident what he allegedly saw.
{¶8} As the trier of fact, the trial court was in the best position to evaluate the credibility
of the testimony and evidence and was free to believe the State's theory of the events and reject
Mr. Shareff’s version, including the testimony of A.E. See State v. Shank, 2013-Ohio-5368, ¶ 29
(9th Dist.). Upon review of the evidence, we cannot say this is the exceptional case where the
evidence weighs heavily against Mr. Shareff’s conviction. Mr. Shareff’s second assignment of
error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPROPERLY APPLYING THE RULES GOVERNING WITNESS LIST[S] UNDER O.C.R. 16(I)(L)(1), RESULTING IN PREJUDICE AGAINST APPELLANT.
{¶9} In his third assignment of error, Mr. Shareff argues that the trial court incorrectly
allowed A.E.’s mother to testify even though she was not on the State’s witness list and was not
present at the scene. According to Mr. Shareff, the court should have prevented A.E.’s mother
from testifying under Criminal Rule 16(I). He also argues that A.E.’s mother’s testimony was
highly prejudicial, and that she may have coerced A.E. into signing a victim statement on the night
of the incident. 5
{¶10} Criminal Rule 16(I) provides that “[e]ach party shall provide to opposing counsel
a written witness list, including names and addresses of any witness it intends to call in its case-
in-chief . . . .” Two days before the trial, the State submitted a witness list that included A.E.’s
mother. At trial, Mr. Shareff did not object to A.E.’s mother testifying, but only to certain
statements that he thought were based on hearsay. Accordingly, upon review of the record, we
conclude that Mr. Shareff has failed to establish error. Mr. Shareff’s third assignment of error is
overruled.
III.
{¶11} Mr. Shareff’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
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. 6
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JENNIFER HENSAL FOR THE COURT
FLAGG LANZINGER, P. J. STEVENSON, J. CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
ROSEL C. HURLEY, III, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and C. RICHLEY RALEY, JR., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.