State v. Suchomski

567 N.E.2d 1304, 58 Ohio St. 3d 74, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 612
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 13, 1991
DocketNo. 89-2131
StatusPublished
Cited by70 cases

This text of 567 N.E.2d 1304 (State v. Suchomski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Suchomski, 567 N.E.2d 1304, 58 Ohio St. 3d 74, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 612 (Ohio 1991).

Opinion

Douglas, J.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the indictment sufficiently charges a criminal offense.

The applicable statute in this case is former R.C. 2919.25, which provided in relevant part that:

“(A) No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member.
“(E) As used in this section * * * of the Revised Code:
“(1) ‘Family or household member’ means * * * a child * * * who is residing or has resided with the offender.” (Emphasis added.) 142 Ohio Laws, Part I, 36-37.

The elements of the crime of domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25[A]) are that a charged defendant must have knowingly caused, or attempted to cause, physical harm to a family or household member.

R.C. 2901.01(C) provides that:

“ ‘Physical harm to persons’ means any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” (Emphasis added.)

Appellant contends that appellee’s conduct, as set forth in the indictment, constitutes a chargeable criminal offense of domestic violence pursuant to the terms of R.C. 2919.25(A). We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

Herein, appellee was indicted for knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm to his child. Appellee’s conduct as charged in the indictment clearly constitutes a violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), and the indictment apprises him of each and every element of the offense. Therefore, the indictment was not defective and should not have been dismissed.

Appellee argues that if he can be [75]*75charged pursuant to R.C. 2919.25(A), it effectively prohibits him from using corporal punishment to discipline his child. Appellee contends that the General Assembly, in enacting R.C. 2919.22,1 recognized the right of a parent to administer reasonable corporal punishment so long as serious physical harm to the child does not result. Thus, according to appellee, there is a conflict between R.C. 2919.25 and 2919.22. We do not agree.

Nothing in R.C. 2919.25(A) prevents a parent from properly disciplining his or her child. The only prohibition is that a parent may not cause “physical harm” as that term is defined in R.C. 2901.01(C). “Physical harm” is defined as “any injury[.]” “Injury” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6 Ed. 1990) 785, as “* * * [t]he invasion of any legally protected interest of another.” (Emphasis added.) A child does not have any legally protected interest which is invaded by proper and reasonable parental discipline.

While appellee denies the' assertions of the state, the only facts presently before us are those contained in appellant’s memorandum in opposition to appellee’s motion to dismiss the indictment. Appellant contends that:

“* * * [Appellee] came home intoxicated after his wife and two children had fallen asleep. The children were pulled out of bed by * * * [appellee], who threatened to beat them all. Eight year old Matthew was ordered to stand at attention while * * * [appellee] punched him in the stomach with his fist. Matthew was consecutively pushed to the ground and then ordered to stand at attention seven times. * * * [Appellee’s] wife and daughter left the room. * * * [Appellee] slammed the door shut and repeatedly pounded Matthew’s head against the wall. * * * [Appellee’s] wife was able to grab the chüd, clad only in his underwear, and run to a neighbor’s house. According to * * * [appellee’s] wife, Matthew’s lip was bloody. * * *”

We find the foregoing to be sufficient to meet all the elements of an R.C. 2919.25(A) charge for domestic violence. Therefore, the indictment should not have been dismissed. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the indictment is reinstated.

Judgment reversed.

Moyer, C.J., Holmes, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. Sweeney and Wright, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Webster
2025 Ohio 5847 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
State v. Hill
2025 Ohio 5500 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Brooklyn v. Qasem
2025 Ohio 1659 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
State v. Mutsago
2024 Ohio 6100 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Chambers
2024 Ohio 3341 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
In re R.S.H.-F.
2024 Ohio 755 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Parks
2023 Ohio 4316 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Thornton
2022 Ohio 3452 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
Dublin v. Starr
2022 Ohio 2298 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
State v. Walter
2022 Ohio 1982 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
State v. Crenshaw
2020 Ohio 4922 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. M.H.
2020 Ohio 4477 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. Faggs (Slip Opinion)
2020 Ohio 523 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2020)
State v. Perez
2020 Ohio 100 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. Smith
2019 Ohio 2467 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
Westlake v. Y.O.
2019 Ohio 2432 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
Collier v. Bayless
2018 Ohio 3922 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
City of Cleveland v. Mincy
2018 Ohio 3565 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
Hamilton v. Purvis
2018 Ohio 2881 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
567 N.E.2d 1304, 58 Ohio St. 3d 74, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-suchomski-ohio-1991.