[Cite as State v. Slocum, 2013-Ohio-2440.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- Case No. 2012CA00223 JANEAN R. SLOCUM
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Alliance Municipal Court, Case No. 2012CRB1409
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June10, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
ANDREW L. ZUMBAR JOHN T. JAKMIDES Alliance City Law Director 325 East Main Street 470 East Market St. Alliance, Ohio 44601 Alliance, Ohio 44601 Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Janean R. Slocum appeals her conviction entered by
the Alliance Municipal Court. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On August 16, 2012, Appellant resided at 623 East High Street, Alliance,
Ohio. The residence was the "family house" of Appellant's boyfriend and Mark
Edwards. At approximately 3:30 a.m., Edwards received a telephone call from his
daughters, who resided at the location, asking him to come to the house as a dispute
had arisen between them and Appellant.
{¶3} Upon arriving at the scene, Edwards attempted to remove Appellant from
the residence. Police Officers at the scene informed Edwards it would be best if
Appellant was not removed at the time, and she should be afforded time to find an
alternate location. Edwards agreed and went home.
{¶4} An hour later, Edwards received another call from his daughters. He and
his son returned to the East High residence. During an altercation, Appellant charged
Edwards scratching him in the face. The police were called to the residence. Appellant
claimed to have been thrown to the ground and choked. Responding police officers
observed the scratch marks on Edwards' face, but observed no visible injuries on
Appellant. Appellant continued to allege Edwards pushed and strangled her during the
altercation.
{¶5} Appellant was placed under arrest at the scene. She asked to be taken to
the hospital to have her injuries evaluated. Patrolman Bartolet did not believe,
according to his training and experience, Appellant was a victim of strangulation, and Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 3
did not observe any physical injury on Appellant’s person. Lieutenant Kevin Moore told
Appellant if her medical examination at the hospital resulted in no finding of injury, she
would be charged with obstructing official business. As a result of the incident, Appellant
was charged with one count of assault, one count of obstructing official business and
one count of menacing.
{¶6} A jury trial was held on November 1, 2012. Appellant filed a Rule 29
motion for acquittal following the State's presentation of the evidence, and the trial court
dismissed the menacing charge. The jury convicted Appellant of the assault and
obstructing official business charges.
{¶7} Appellant assigns as error;
{¶8} “I. MS. SLOCUM’S CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT WAS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, AS HER SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM SHOULD
HAVE BEEN UPHELD.
{¶9} “II. MS. SLOCUM’S CONVICTION FOR OBSTRUCTING OFFICIAL
BUSINESS WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, AS SHE
WAS PRIVILEGED TO REQUEST MEDICAL ATTENTION FOLLOWING THE
ALTERCATION WITH MR. EDWARDS.”
I.
{¶10} In the first assignment of error, Appellant maintains her conviction for
assault is against the manifest weight of the evidence as her claim of self-defense
should have been upheld.
{¶11} On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire
record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 4
witnesses and determine “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.” State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175.
See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997–Ohio–52. The granting of a new
trial “should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs
heavily against the conviction.” Martin at 175.
{¶12} In State v. Petrone, 5th Dist. 2011CA00067, 2012-Ohio-911, this Court
held,
{¶13} "To prevail on a common law self defense claim, the offender must
demonstrate that he was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; he
had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and
that the only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force; and he
must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger. State v. Robbins (1979),
58 Ohio St.2d 74, at 80."
{¶14} Upon review of the record, the testimony and evidence introduced at trial
indicates Appellant was allowed to remain at the residence until she found an
alternative place to reside, she continued in the altercation with the residents of the
house, and when Mr. Edwards returned with his son, she charged him causing
scratches to his face. We find the jury could have found Appellant failed to demonstrate
she was not at fault in creating the situation, or she had a bona fide belief she was in
imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and the only means of escape was force.
Further, Appellant had a duty to retreat to avoid any alleged danger. Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 5
{¶15} Accordingly, we find Appellant's conviction for assault was not against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶16} The first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶17} In the second assignment of error, Appellant maintains her conviction for
obstructing official business was against the manifest weight of the evidence as she
was privileged to request medical attention following her altercation with Edwards.
{¶18} The State concedes if a person is injured under police care, the police are
obligated as a matter of law to seek medical attention on their behalf (Emphasis added).
However, the State maintains the responding officers did not in their experience and
training believe Appellant was injured or needed medical attention.
{¶19} Appellant was charged with obstructing official business in violation of
R.C. 2921.31, which reads:
{¶20} "(A) No 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."
{¶21} Appellant was advised by the responding officers, if the treating doctors at
the hospital reported she had no injuries, she would be charged with obstructing official
business.
{¶22} Patrolman Bartolet testified at trial,
{¶23} “Q. Now, you’ve heard her say he tried to choke her out to the point that
she couldn’t breathe at all? Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 6
{¶24} “A. That’s what she stated.
{¶25} “Q. Did you take any steps to attempt to verify her statement?
{¶26} “A. I did.
{¶27} “Q. What steps did you personally take?
{¶28} “A.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Slocum, 2013-Ohio-2440.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- Case No. 2012CA00223 JANEAN R. SLOCUM
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Alliance Municipal Court, Case No. 2012CRB1409
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June10, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
ANDREW L. ZUMBAR JOHN T. JAKMIDES Alliance City Law Director 325 East Main Street 470 East Market St. Alliance, Ohio 44601 Alliance, Ohio 44601 Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Janean R. Slocum appeals her conviction entered by
the Alliance Municipal Court. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On August 16, 2012, Appellant resided at 623 East High Street, Alliance,
Ohio. The residence was the "family house" of Appellant's boyfriend and Mark
Edwards. At approximately 3:30 a.m., Edwards received a telephone call from his
daughters, who resided at the location, asking him to come to the house as a dispute
had arisen between them and Appellant.
{¶3} Upon arriving at the scene, Edwards attempted to remove Appellant from
the residence. Police Officers at the scene informed Edwards it would be best if
Appellant was not removed at the time, and she should be afforded time to find an
alternate location. Edwards agreed and went home.
{¶4} An hour later, Edwards received another call from his daughters. He and
his son returned to the East High residence. During an altercation, Appellant charged
Edwards scratching him in the face. The police were called to the residence. Appellant
claimed to have been thrown to the ground and choked. Responding police officers
observed the scratch marks on Edwards' face, but observed no visible injuries on
Appellant. Appellant continued to allege Edwards pushed and strangled her during the
altercation.
{¶5} Appellant was placed under arrest at the scene. She asked to be taken to
the hospital to have her injuries evaluated. Patrolman Bartolet did not believe,
according to his training and experience, Appellant was a victim of strangulation, and Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 3
did not observe any physical injury on Appellant’s person. Lieutenant Kevin Moore told
Appellant if her medical examination at the hospital resulted in no finding of injury, she
would be charged with obstructing official business. As a result of the incident, Appellant
was charged with one count of assault, one count of obstructing official business and
one count of menacing.
{¶6} A jury trial was held on November 1, 2012. Appellant filed a Rule 29
motion for acquittal following the State's presentation of the evidence, and the trial court
dismissed the menacing charge. The jury convicted Appellant of the assault and
obstructing official business charges.
{¶7} Appellant assigns as error;
{¶8} “I. MS. SLOCUM’S CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT WAS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, AS HER SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM SHOULD
HAVE BEEN UPHELD.
{¶9} “II. MS. SLOCUM’S CONVICTION FOR OBSTRUCTING OFFICIAL
BUSINESS WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, AS SHE
WAS PRIVILEGED TO REQUEST MEDICAL ATTENTION FOLLOWING THE
ALTERCATION WITH MR. EDWARDS.”
I.
{¶10} In the first assignment of error, Appellant maintains her conviction for
assault is against the manifest weight of the evidence as her claim of self-defense
should have been upheld.
{¶11} On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire
record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 4
witnesses and determine “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.” State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175.
See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997–Ohio–52. The granting of a new
trial “should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs
heavily against the conviction.” Martin at 175.
{¶12} In State v. Petrone, 5th Dist. 2011CA00067, 2012-Ohio-911, this Court
held,
{¶13} "To prevail on a common law self defense claim, the offender must
demonstrate that he was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; he
had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and
that the only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force; and he
must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger. State v. Robbins (1979),
58 Ohio St.2d 74, at 80."
{¶14} Upon review of the record, the testimony and evidence introduced at trial
indicates Appellant was allowed to remain at the residence until she found an
alternative place to reside, she continued in the altercation with the residents of the
house, and when Mr. Edwards returned with his son, she charged him causing
scratches to his face. We find the jury could have found Appellant failed to demonstrate
she was not at fault in creating the situation, or she had a bona fide belief she was in
imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and the only means of escape was force.
Further, Appellant had a duty to retreat to avoid any alleged danger. Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 5
{¶15} Accordingly, we find Appellant's conviction for assault was not against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶16} The first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶17} In the second assignment of error, Appellant maintains her conviction for
obstructing official business was against the manifest weight of the evidence as she
was privileged to request medical attention following her altercation with Edwards.
{¶18} The State concedes if a person is injured under police care, the police are
obligated as a matter of law to seek medical attention on their behalf (Emphasis added).
However, the State maintains the responding officers did not in their experience and
training believe Appellant was injured or needed medical attention.
{¶19} Appellant was charged with obstructing official business in violation of
R.C. 2921.31, which reads:
{¶20} "(A) No 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."
{¶21} Appellant was advised by the responding officers, if the treating doctors at
the hospital reported she had no injuries, she would be charged with obstructing official
business.
{¶22} Patrolman Bartolet testified at trial,
{¶23} “Q. Now, you’ve heard her say he tried to choke her out to the point that
she couldn’t breathe at all? Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 6
{¶24} “A. That’s what she stated.
{¶25} “Q. Did you take any steps to attempt to verify her statement?
{¶26} “A. I did.
{¶27} “Q. What steps did you personally take?
{¶28} “A. I actually looked for injury to the neck as I stated. And also for
petechiae in the white of her eyes to see if there was any blood vessels that may have
been popped which would indicate that she had been strangled - - non fatally strangled.
{¶29} “Q. Did you see any blemish whatsoever on her neck?
{¶30} “A. I did not. No, sir.
{¶31} “Q. And nothing in her eyes?
{¶32} “A. No, sir.
{¶33} “Q. All right. And you know that she went to the hospital later on, correct?
{¶34} “A. Yes, sir.
{¶35} “Q. All right. And nothing at the hospital either?
{¶36} “A. Nothing at the hospital. As seen by the on duty physician.
{¶37} “Q. Now, when it - - explain to the - - the Jury, when a cop has to take - -
I’m sorry - - an arrestee goes to the hospital, do the cops just get to say we’ll trust you to
come back here and pick up where we left off?
{¶38} “A. No, no, sir.
{¶39} “Q. How does that work?
{¶40} “A. Can you explain - -explain that again - -ask that again.
{¶41} “Q. Okay. I’m sorry. When- - when the arrestee, a defendant- -.
{¶42} “A. Right, defendant- -. Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 7
{¶43} “Q. Is arrested and then says hey look I need treatment- - I need to go to
the hospital, do you guys just give them a key and say come back to the Alliance Police
Department?
{¶44} “A. No.
{¶45} “Q. Let yourself back in when we’re done?
{¶46} “A. They’re- - they’re in our custody. I’m sorry. They’re in our custody.
We take ‘em up there. We stay with them the entire time. Let them explain to the
doctor what happened. We also have a chance to also explain to the physician what,
you know, if there was any injury and also for them to check for those things as well.
{¶47} “Q. And by claiming the injury which did not occur, was an officer pulled of
[sic] the street from his duties?
{¶48} “A. Absolutely, the- - yes, for that entire time- - hours over at the hospital.
{¶49} “Q. Is the officer able to conduct his normal duties and normal business
affairs while he is pulled off the street to- - to go to the hospital and babysit this- -.
{¶50} “A. No, sir. He’s detailed with that and staying with the- - with the
defendant the entire time.
{¶51} “Q. All right. And that- - does that obstruct the standard, normal
procedures, hamper and impede a police officer in his ordinary course of duties?
{¶52} “A. It does, yes, sir.”
{¶53} Tr. at p. 54-56.
{¶54} Lieutenant Kevin Moore then testified, Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 8
{¶55} “Q. What happens when somebody sits at the hospital- - a police officer
sits at the hospital for an hour waiting for somebody to be cleared? Are they available
to respond to calls for you?
{¶56} “A. No, they’re not. They’re not allowed to respond to any calls cause
they’re tied up with a prisoner.
{¶57} “Q. How do you make that determination that it was a - - a phantom
injury? Did you personally look at her?
{¶58} “A. She had no visible injuries that I was able to observe at the scene.
Officer Bartolet, advised me that when she requested to go to the hospital. I advised to
go ahead and take her and told him that if the doctor says that there’s nothing wrong
with her, that we were going to charge her. And we advised her of that before she even
left.
{¶59} “Q. But she went anyway?
{¶60} “A. Yes.
{¶61} “Q. All right. And no injury?
{¶62} “A. No injuries were reported by the doctors.
{¶63} “Q. All right. And this is the same Janean Slocum in question, sir?
{¶64} “A. Yes, it is.
{¶65} “* * *
{¶66} “A. [sic] All right. You don’t know if- -you did not know, sir, at the time
Janean was arrested whether she had suffered any injuries or not, correct?
{¶67} “A. Besides not seeing any visible injuries to Miss Slocum and having
prac- - past incidents with Miss Slocum and dealing with her, no, I did not know if she Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 9
was injured or not. That’s why I warned her that is she insisted on going to the hospital
and she was not injured, and it was determined by the doctor that she was not injured,
that she would be charged.”
{¶68} Tr. at 73-75.
{¶69} Based upon the above, we find Appellant's conviction for obstructing
official business is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶70} The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶71} Appellant's conviction and sentence in the Alliance Municipal Court is
affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ John W. Wise _____________________ HON. JOHN W. WISE
s/ Craig R. Baldwin ___________________ HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00223 10
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : JANEAN R. SLOCUM : : Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 2012CA00223
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, Appellant's conviction and
sentence in the Alliance Municipal Court is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Craig R. Baldwin___________________ HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN