State v. Mays , 2022 Ohio 3659 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Mays, 2022-Ohio-3659.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 29051
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2020-CRB-2063
:
ROYCE L. MAYS : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
:
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 14th day of October, 2022.
...........
STEPHANIE L. COOK, Atty. Reg. No. 0067101 and AMY B. MUSTO, Atty. Reg. No.
0071514, City of Dayton Prosecutor’s Office, 335 West Third Street, Room 372, Dayton,
Ohio 45402
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
DAWN S. GARRETT, Atty. Reg. No. 0055565, 70 Birch Alley, Suite 240-24005,
Beavercreek, Ohio 45440
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
WELBAUM, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Royce L. Mays, appeals from his misdemeanor assault
conviction following a bench trial in the Dayton Municipal Court. In support of his appeal,
Mays asserts that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and was
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, Mays asserts that the evidence
presented at trial established that he was acting in self-defense during the assault in
question and that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden under
R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-
defense. Mays also asserts that the weight of the evidence supported his self-defense
claim and that the trial court erred by failing to grant his Crim.R. 29 motion for an acquittal
of the assault charge. Because the State presented video evidence at trial showing that
Mays was not acting in self-defense at the time he assaulted the victim, the judgment of
conviction will be affirmed.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On July 1, 2020, Mays was charged with assault in violation of R.C.
2903.13(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. The charge arose from allegations that
Mays assaulted a patron at the House of Bread in Dayton, Ohio, while Mays was there
providing security services. Mays pled not guilty to the charge, and the matter
proceeded to a bench trial.
{¶ 3} During trial, the State presented testimony from two witnesses: the executive
director of the House of Bread and a bystander who witnessed the alleged assault. The
-3-
State also presented video evidence taken from the House of Bread’s security camera.
The defense presented testimony from one of Mays’s co-workers who was working at the
House of Bread during the incident in question. Mays himself also testified at trial.
{¶ 4} The testimony and evidence presented at trial established that Mays worked
for a company that had contracted to provide security services for the House of Bread.
The House of Bread is a non-profit community organization that provides meals to anyone
in need. There is no dispute that on June 20, 2020, Mays was providing security services
at the House of Bread when a regular patron named Kenya Turner attempted to enter the
building while pushing a baby stroller that contained her personal items. There is also
no dispute that Mays would not let Turner enter the building with the stroller.
{¶ 5} Mays testified that when he encountered Turner, it was his first day back
working at the House of Bread since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Because of this,
Mays testified that he was unsure whether Turner was permitted to bring her stroller into
the building, as new restrictions were in place. Mays testified that he stopped Turner
from entering the House of Bread and told her to “hold on” so that he could ask his co-
worker if Turner could bring her stroller inside. Trial Tr. (Nov. 4, 2020), p. 88.
{¶ 6} Mays testified that as he was asking his co-worker about Tuner’s stroller,
Turner tried to force her way into the building by pushing her stroller into his leg. Mays
also testified that Turner was yelling obscenities at him and was being violent and
disorderly. Mays claimed that as a result of Turner’s conduct, he decided not to allow
Turner inside the House of Bread, and Turner hit him when he tried to eject her from the
building. Mays testified that he thereafter hit Turner in self-defense because Turner
-4-
continued to be aggressive and because he had “to get her off [him].” Trial Tr. at 92.
Mays’s co-worker, Joelikia Dumas, similarly testified that Turner was holding onto Mays
after they stumbled down the steps and that Mays hit Turner in an effort to get Turner off
of him.
{¶ 7} A security camera from the House of Bread captured the incident on video,
and the video footage was admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit 1. Due to the
position of the security camera, the video footage only depicts what happened just outside
the House of Bread’s entrance. Therefore, on the video, Turner can be seen attempting
to get her stroller inside the House of Bread and pushing the stroller toward the entrance
with force. Mays is not shown on the video until he steps outside to eject Turner from
the building.
{¶ 8} While ejecting Turner, Mays, who was much larger than Turner, could be
seen on the video taking a hold of Turner’s stroller. After Mays took hold of the stroller,
the video showed Turner slapping Mays on the top of his head with her hand. Thereafter,
Mays moved his body forward toward Turner, which caused both Mays and Turner to lose
their balance and stumble down a short set of steps located in front of the building. The
video showed that Mays held Turner’s arm as they were stumbling down the steps. As
Mays and Turner regained their footing, Turner could be seen moving her body away
from Mays, but Mays kept a hold of Turner’s arm, grabbed Turner’s head with both of his
hands, and then forcefully hit Turner across the face with his right hand.
{¶ 9} After Mays hit Turner in the face, the video showed Mays picking up a jelly
jar that had fallen out of Turner’s overturned stroller and throwing the jelly jar on the
-5-
ground near Turner. It was unclear from the video whether Mays was attempting to hit
Turner with the jar. Mays testified that he threw the jar out of anger because Turner had
spit at him. Both Mays and Dumas testified that Mays threw the jar at the ground and
that Mays had not been aiming it at Turner. The bystander who testified for the State,
Shaun Sullivan, testified that it appeared as though Mays was trying to hit Turner with the
jar.
{¶ 10} The video of the incident was played several times during trial. After the
State rested its case, Mays moved for a Crim.R. 29 acquittal on the assault charge. In
support of the motion, Mays argued that the video evidence established that Turner had
been violent with Mays and that Mays had hit Turner in self-defense during their physical
altercation. Mays also argued that an acquittal was proper because the State had failed
to meet its burden to present evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that he
had not acted in self-defense during the altercation. The trial court, however, disagreed
with Mays and found that the State had satisfied its burden of proof. Accordingly, the
trial court overruled Mays’s Crim.R. 29 motion.
{¶ 11} At the end of trial, the trial court rejected Mays’s claim of self-defense and
found him guilty of assault. The trial court sentenced Mays to 180 days in jail, all of which
were suspended, and to one year of basic probation. The trial court also ordered Mays
to pay a $200 fine and court costs.
{¶ 12} Mays appeals from his conviction, raising two assignments of error for
review. Because Mays’s assignments of error are interrelated, we will address them
together.
-6-
First and Second Assignments of Error
{¶ 13} Under his first assignment of error, Mays raises sufficiency and manifest
weight arguments that pertain to his claim of self-defense. Specifically, Mays contends
that the evidence presented at trial established that he was acting in self-defense when
he assaulted Turner and that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy its
burden under R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) to show that he was not acting in self-defense. Mays
also contends that the trial court’s rejection of his self-defense claim was against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 14} Under his second assignment of error, Mays contends that the trial court
erred by overruling his Crim.R. 29 motion for an acquittal. Because a Crim.R. 29 motion
tests the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, rulings on Crim.R. 29 motions are
reviewed under the same standards that apply to a review for sufficiency of the evidence.
State v. Baker, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2009-CA-62, 2010-Ohio-2633, ¶ 16; State v.
Crabtree, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2019-CA-1, 2019-Ohio-3686, ¶16, citing State v.
Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d 569, 576, 660 N.E.2d 724 (1996). Therefore, Mays’s second
assignment of error also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as it relates to his self-
defense claim.
{¶ 15} “A sufficiency of the evidence argument disputes whether the State has
presented adequate evidence on each element of the offense to allow the case to go to
the jury or sustain the verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 10, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678
-7-
N.E.2d 541 (1997). “When reviewing a claim as to sufficiency of evidence, the relevant
inquiry is whether any rational factfinder viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to
the state could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 430, 683
N.E.2d 1096 (1997). “The verdict will not be disturbed unless the appellate court finds
that reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier-of-fact.”
(Citations omitted.) Id.{¶ 16} In contrast, “[a] weight of the evidence argument challenges the believability
of the evidence and asks which of the competing inferences suggested by the evidence
is more believable or persuasive.” (Citation omitted.) Wilson at ¶ 12. When evaluating
whether a conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court
must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider
witness credibility, 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.’ ” Thompkins at 387, quoting State
v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983).
{¶ 17} As previously discussed, Mays was convicted of first-degree-misdemeanor
assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A). That statute prohibits any person from
“knowingly caus[ing] or attempt[ing] to cause physical harm to another or to another’s
unborn.” R.C. 2903.13(A). “Physical harm” means any injury, illness, or other
physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration. R.C. 2901.01(A)(3).
{¶ 18} During his testimony, Mays admitted to physically assaulting Turner on the
-8-
day in question by grabbing her head and hitting her, but he claimed that he engaged in
such conduct while acting in self-defense. “It is well established that ‘[t]he defense of
self-defense may exonerate an accused’s admitted use of force.’ ” State v. Shropshire,
2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29108, 2021-Ohio-3848, ¶ 16, quoting State v. Parrish, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-190379, 2020-Ohio-4807, ¶ 4. R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) specifically provides
that “[a] person is allowed to act in self-defense” and that if there is evidence presented
at trial “that tends to support that the accused person used the force in self-defense, * * *
the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person did not
use force in self-defense[.]” R.C. 2901.05(B)(1).
{¶ 19} “To establish self-defense, a defendant must introduce evidence showing
that: (1) he was not at fault in creating the violent situation; (2) he had a bona fide belief
that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm; and (3) he did not violate any duty to
retreat or avoid the danger.” State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-7424, 96 N.E.3d 1128, ¶ 24 (2d
Dist.), citing State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 326, 673 N.E.2d 1339 (1997). “It is
well established that a person cannot provoke a fight or voluntarily enter combat and then
claim self-defense.” (Citations omitted.) State v. James, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
28892, 2021-Ohio-1112, ¶ 21. “Moreover, a defendant must have a bona fide belief that
the use of force was the only means of escape.” State v. Lovett, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 29240, 2022-Ohio-1693, ¶ 42, citing James at ¶ 21. “Part of this entails a showing
that the defendant used ‘only that force that [was] reasonably necessary to repel the
attack.’ ” State v. Wallace-Lee, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2019-CA-19, 2020-Ohio-3681, ¶ 42,
quoting State v. Bundy, 2012-Ohio-3934, 974 N.E.2d 139, ¶ 55 (4th Dist.). “If the force
-9-
used was so disproportionate that it shows a purpose to injure, self-defense is
unavailable.” (Citation omitted.) Lovett at ¶ 42.
{¶ 20} In this case, Mays argues that he was acting in self-defense when he hit
Turner because Turner had hit him first and because he was trying to get Turner off of
him during their physical altercation. The video evidence, however, clearly showed that
Mays went on the offensive after he stumbled down the stairs with Turner. The video
showed that as Mays and Turner were stumbling down the stairs, Mays had a hold of
Turner’s arm and continued to hold on to Turner as they regained their footing at the
bottom of the steps. The video also showed that Turner, who was much smaller than
Mays, briefly attempted to move her body away from Mays, but that Mays kept a hold of
Turner’s arm, grabbed Turner’s head with both of his hands, and forcefully hit Turner
across the face.
{¶ 21} At the time Mays hit Turner, Turner was not posing a threat of harm to Mays
that warranted Mays’s hitting Turner in the manner he did. Indeed, Mays was the one
who kept a hold of Turner’s arm, and nothing prevented him from letting Turner go after
they stumbled down the steps. Therefore, the video did not support a finding that hitting
Turner in the face was reasonably necessary for Mays to protect himself or to escape
from the violent situation. Instead, the video established that Mays went on the offensive
and prolonged the violent situation by assaulting Turner.
{¶ 22} Because the video evidence clearly established that Mays went on the
offensive when he hit Turner, the video was more than sufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Mays was not acting in self-defense when he assaulted Turner.
-10-
Given that the video evidence was sufficient in that regard, the trial court did not err by
overruling Mays’s Crim.R. 29 motion. In light of this, we also find that the video evidence
was sufficient to convict Mays of assault and that said conviction was not against the
manifest weight of the evidence, as the video evidence undoubtedly belied Mays’s claim
of self-defense.
{¶ 23} For all the foregoing reasons, Mays’s first and second assignments of error
are overruled.
Conclusion
{¶ 24} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
.............
DONOVAN, J. and EPLEY, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Stephanie L. Cook
Amy B. Musto
Dawn S. Garrett
Hon. Mia Wortham Spells
Hon. Edward Utacht, Visiting Judge