State v. Welch

2024 Ohio 434

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 6, 2024
• Docket: 23 CAA 07 0040
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Welch, 2024-Ohio-434.]

COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. Hon. Andrew J. King, J. -vs- Case No. 23 CAA 07 0040 CALEB C. WELCH

Defendant-Appellant OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 23 CR I 050240

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 6, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL WILLIAM T. CRAMER Delaware County Prosecutor 470 Olde Worthington Road, Suite #200 Westerville, Ohio 43082 KATHERYN L. MUNGER Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Delaware County Prosecutor’s Office 145 North Union Street, 3rd Floor Delaware, Ohio 43015 Delaware County, Case No. 23 CAA 07 0040 2

Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Caleb Welch appeals the judgment entered by the

Delaware County Common Pleas Court convicting him following bench trial of two counts

of domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)) and sentencing him to an aggregate term of

incarceration of 36 months. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} In 2022, the victim lived in Del-Mor Dwellings, an apartment facility for

people with mental illnesses. The victim’s mother and son lived with her, and were at the

time named on the lease. Appellant was also living in the apartment. Appellant met the

victim online while he was in a halfway house, and they began dating. Appellant was only

permitted to live with the victim for 14 days because he was not on the lease. The building

owners refused to add Appellant to the lease because of his past history.

{¶3} After the first month of living together, the couple began arguing. Appellant

was disrespectful toward the victim’s mother, making fun of her health conditions,

threatening to put fentanyl in her medication, and threatening to bury her in a river.

{¶4} During the evening hours of October 26, 2022, the victim went to work

cleaning a client’s apartment in her job as a home health aide. Appellant and the victim’s

son were with her, and they intended to spend the night at the client’s home. The victim

and Appellant argued in the kitchen. Appellant grabbed the victim’s face and poked her

face. The victim screamed for help. Appellant dug his hand into her mouth to prevent

her from screaming, causing the victim’s mouth to bleed. The client gave the victim a

towel to stop the bleeding, and told her to get out of the situation.

{¶5} The victim drove home, leaving Appellant and her son at her client’s home.

The victim and her mother worked on stopping the victim’s bleeding, and then fell asleep. Delaware County, Case No. 23 CAA 07 0040 3

{¶6} Early the next morning, Appellant returned to the apartment with the victim’s

son. After the victim’s son left for school, Appellant and the victim argued again. The

victim tried to walk away. Appellant pushed her to the floor in the hallway, and poked her.

Appellant punched the victim with his fist and came down hard on her ribs. The victim’s

mother attempted to open the door to get help. Appellant closed the door, and the victim’s

mother fell or was pushed down. A neighbor called 911.

{¶7} When the police arrived, the victim was uncooperative. Initially she was

quiet, then she began screaming at police. The victim’s mother was transported to the

hospital for medical treatment. The property manager asked Appellant to leave the

property, and police escorted him off the property. After Appellant left, police returned to

the property, and the victim gave a statement.

{¶8} On November 3, 2022, Appellant was indicted in case number

22CR1006101 on one count of domestic violence. The indictment alleged he had two

prior domestic violence convictions, elevating the offense to a third-degree felony. He

was indicted on May 4, 2023, in case number 23CRI050240 with two counts of domestic

violence, both third-degree felonies based on his prior domestic violence convictions. The

2022 case was dismissed, and all filings were transferred to the new case number.

{¶9} During the pendency of the case, Appellant subpoenaed mental health

records of the victim from Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare. The trial court reviewed

the requested records in camera, and held they were not subject to disclosure to the

defense. The trial court preserved the records for appellate review.

{¶10} The case proceeded to bench trial in the trial court. Appellant testified in

his own defense. He testified the victim’s mother was drunk on October 26 when they Delaware County, Case No. 23 CAA 07 0040 4

left to go to the victim’s client’s home. Appellant testified they argued at the client’s house

around 11:30 p.m., and the victim began beating herself in the face. According to

Appellant, he put his arms around her to restrain her, and she was not bleeding. Appellant

claimed when the victim stopped beating herself, he and the victim’s son left and went to

a conference room in the building. When they returned to the client’s apartment, the

victim had left in the car. Appellant and the victim’s son walked back to the apartment,

but instead of going inside, they slept in the car. The next morning, they went inside.

Appellant testified after the victim’s son went to school, he and the victim had another

argument. He denied a physical altercation with the victim, and claimed the victim’s

mother fell as he was trying to stop him from leaving the apartment. Appellant testified

he asked a neighbor to call 911 because the victim’s mother claimed she broke her arm.

{¶11} The trial court convicted Appellant on both counts of domestic violence. The

trial court sentenced Appellant to 36 months incarceration on each conviction, to be

served concurrently. The trial court terminated Appellant’s post-release control on a prior

case, and imposed an additional prison term of 708 days, to be served consecutively to

the sentences imposed in the instant case.

{¶12} It is from the July 7, 2023 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes

his appeal, assigning as error:

I. APPELLANT’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS REQUIRE THIS

COURT TO REVIEW THE VICTIM’S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO

DETERMINE WHETHER ANY MATERIAL RECORDS WERE

IMPROPERLY SHIELDED FROM THE DEFENSE. Delaware County, Case No. 23 CAA 07 0040 5

II. APPELLANT’S GUILTY VERDICTS WERE NOT SUPPORTED

BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

I.

{¶13} In his first assignment of error, Appellant asks this court to review the

victim’s mental health records, submitted to the trial court under seal for in camera review,

to determine whether any material records were improperly shielded from him.

{¶14} “The proper procedure in determining the availability of confidential records

is for the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection to determine relevancy and

necessity, and whether the admission of the records outweighs the confidentiality

considerations.” State v. Fuson, 5th Dist. Knox No. 97CA000023, 1998 WL 518259.

(relying upon Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 107 S.Ct. 989, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987)).

The standard of review for materiality is whether there is a reasonable probability, had

the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been

different. State v. Lawson, 64 Ohio St.3d 336, 343, 595 N.E.2d 902 (1992). A reasonable

probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.

State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48, 61, 529 N.E.2d 898 (1988). The possibility an item

of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the

outcome of the trial, does not establish materiality. State v. Gibbons, 5th Dist. Stark No.

1998CA00158, 2000 WL 502694.

{¶15} We have reviewed the victim’s mental health records, and we find there is

not a reasonable probability, had the records been disclosed, the result of the proceeding Delaware County, Case No. 23 CAA 07 0040 6

would have been different. We find the trial court did not err in failing to disclose the

records to Appellant.

{¶16} The first assignment of error is overruled.

II.

{¶17} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court’s

judgment convicting him of two counts of domestic violence is against the manifest weight

of the evidence. He argues the trial court erred in finding the victim’s testimony more

credible than Appellant’s testimony.

{¶18} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, the appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror and “in reviewing the entire record,

weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses,

and determines whether in resolving conflicts in 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. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678

N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1983).

We note the trier of fact “has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and

credibility of each witness, something that does not translate well on the written page.”

Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). While the trier of

fact may take note of inconsistencies and resolve or discount them accordingly, such

inconsistencies alone do not render a conviction against the manifest weight or sufficiency

of the evidence. State v. Wolters, 5th Dist. No. 21CA000008, 2022-Ohio-538, 185 N.E.3d

601, ¶ 20. Delaware County, Case No. 23 CAA 07 0040 7

{¶19} Appellant was convicted of two counts of domestic violence as defined by

R.C. 2919.25(A), which provides, “No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause

physical harm to a family or household member.”

{¶20} The victim testified while at her client’s residence on October 26, Appellant

struck her with his fist and scraped the inside of her mouth with his nails, causing her to

bleed. The victim’s mother testified the victim returned home that night upset, and she

was bleeding. Photographs were admitted into evidence of the towel with spots of blood

on it which the victim testified was given to her by her client, and of the victim’s facial

bruising. The victim testified on October 27, Appellant knocked her down in the hallway

of her apartment and struck her. The victim’s mother testified she heard the scuffle in the

hallway.

{¶21} Appellant testified at trial the victim beat herself in the face on October 26,

and he attempted to restrain her. He testified when he left the residence on October 27,

she followed him in her car, and tried to get him to get in the car with her. He testified

she continued to telephone him while he was in jail. He argues the victim’s behavior is

inconsistent with her testimony he physically abused her. He argues, based on his own

testimony, the victim was bipolar and off her medication, and therefore not a credible

witness.

{¶22} The instant case was a bench trial. The trial court, as the trier of fact, made

the following statements on the record concerning the credibility of witnesses:

Yesterday, we spent the day on a bench trial and all of the evidence

has been presented. The Court spent the evening last night going back Delaware County, Case No. 23 CAA 07 0040 8

over the evidence. I did review the testimony of all of the witnesses

presented.

In fact, I went back and listened again to the testimony of [the victim],

[the victim’s mother], and Caleb Welch, and then reviewed all of the exhibits

again that were presented by both sides.

It’s my view that this case is largely about the credibility of the

witnesses. In considering that, I do consider, as the rules provide to us, that

we are to consider the appearance of each witness on the stand; the

reasonableness of that witness’s testimony; any interest or bias that witness

may have; the witness’s frankness, or lack of it; and all the facts and

circumstances surrounding that witness’s testimony.

I do find credible the testimony of [the victim]. I do find the pictures

of the bloody towel and the bloody sweatshirt to be credible. And I find the

fact that the bloody towel and her mouth was bloody was buttressed by the

testimony of her mother…

I also found Mr. Welch’s testimony largely not credible, particularly

the testimony about [the victim] hitting herself. His claim that [the victim’s

mother], strangely, to me felt so strong that she didn’t want him to leave the

apartment that she tried to block the door, which I didn’t find credible at all;

and, frankly, I find silly. And then, somehow, she tripped and fell on the

ground so forcefully without being pushed by him that she injured her hip

and arm. Delaware County, Case No. 23 CAA 07 0040 9

I also found credible the officers who indicated that, when they

arrived, Mr. Welch did not explain any of the things he said during trial,

which I think a reasonable person would have done, and then placed his

hands behind his back as if expecting to be arrested.

{¶23} Tr. (II) 257-59.

{¶24} We find the trial court did not lose its way in finding the victim’s testimony,

which was corroborated by other witnesses and evidence admitted in the case, to be

more credible than Appellant’s testimony, and the trial court did not lose its way in finding

Appellant guilty of two counts of domestic violence.

{¶25} The second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶26} The judgment of the Delaware County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J. Baldwin, J. and King, J. concur