State v. Slocum
Opinion
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
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.
{¶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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2013 Ohio 2440 (State v. Slocum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.