State v. Baker , 2020 Ohio 2882 ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Baker, 2020-Ohio-2882.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2019-08-146
: OPINION
- vs - 5/11/2020
:
KIMBERLY BAKER, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. 19CRB01045
Neal D. Schuett, City of Hamilton Prosecuting Attorney, 345 High Street, 2nd Floor,
Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee
Christopher Paul Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Kimberly Baker, appeals her conviction in the Hamilton Municipal
Court for one count of assault. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On March 29, 2019, a complaint was filed charging Baker with one count of
assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a first-degree misdemeanor. As alleged in the
complaint, the charge arose after Baker grabbed the victim, M.B., through the passenger
Butler CA2019-08-146
side window of a truck parked outside of 96 Whitaker Avenue, New Miami, Butler County,
Ohio at approximately 6:30 p.m. on the evening of March 17, 2019. Upon grabbing M.B.,
Baker then pulled M.B. through the window and out onto the ground, which resulted in M.B.
suffering a broken right arm. There is no dispute that the truck from which Baker pulled
M.B. belonged to M.B.'s boyfriend, M.A. M.A. is Baker's brother.
{¶ 3} On July 2, 2019, the matter was tried to the bench. During trial, the trial court
heard testimony from three witnesses: M.B., Baker, and Baker's and M.A.'s father, T.A.
M.B. testified that she and M.A. had gone to T.A.'s house to pick up some of M.A.'s
belongings on the evening of March 17, 2019. When asked the address of T.A.'s house,
M.B. testified that she was "not familiar with this area" because she was "not from around
here" but that she "believed" it was 96 Whitaker Avenue, Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio.
Specifically, as M.B. testified:
A: I believe it was 96 Whitaker Avenue. I'm not familiar with this
area and I'm not from around here.
Q: What city is that in, do you know?
A: Butler, Hamilton. I have – I'm not familiar with this area.
Q: Okay.
A: I just know that Butler County Police responded, but –
{¶ 4} M.B. testified that she was planning on just sitting in the truck while M.A. got
his belongs "because I know his parents and family don't like me." However, when T.A.
walked by the truck and waved to her, M.B. got out of the truck to help. M.B. testified that
this lasted for approximately 30 minutes. M.B. testified that M.A. then went inside T.A.'s
house to see his daughter. After M.A. was inside the house, M.B. went back to the truck to
wait for M.A. thinking they would "hopefully leave soon." M.B. testified that she was the
only one outside T.A.'s house at that time. This included both T.A. and Baker, as well as
-2-
Butler CA2019-08-146
M.A.'s mother.
{¶ 5} M.B. testified that she heard yelling coming from inside T.A.'s house a short
time later, "not even five minutes." M.B. testified that she then watched as M.A. came out
of the house with Baker "chasing behind him." When asked to describe Baker's demeanor
at that time, M.B. testified that Baker came "charging" out of the house "very aggressive
like," "yelling all crazy," chasing after M.A. "trying to get him by his shirt and pull him back."
M.B. testified M.A.'s mother then came out of T.A.'s house and started "running" towards
the truck yelling at her. Seeing M.A.'s mother "charging" at her, M.B. rolled up the truck's
passenger side window about halfway. M.B. testified that M.A. then came over to the truck
to "kind of like get in front of [his mother]" to "try to like block her to tell her, you know, it's
not – to leave her alone, you know."
{¶ 6} M.B. testified that M.A. and Baker then started to "go at it again." According
to M.B., this included Baker choking M.A. from the front while at the same time M.A.'s
mother was behind him "in the back like choking, like pulling from the back[.]" Seeing this,
M.B. took out her phone and started recording. Upon noticing that M.B. was recording the
fight with her phone, Baker got mad and "started charging" towards the truck where M.B.
was sitting. Describing what happened next, M.B. testified:
[Baker] charges the – she charges the truck. The window is
back down, because obviously I rolled it back down to see
everything else that was going on when the mom backed away,
and rolled it back down and that's when, you know, [Baker]
noticed me recording, she charges at the truck.
And she comes in the truck window to try to get the phone from
me from recording, and we're tugging back and forth over the
phone, and she grabs me by the shirt and she just drags me out
of the window and I fell * * * on my [right] arm.
{¶ 7} M.B. testified that after being pulled through the window, she took a "pretty
fair drop" and heard her right arm "snap" as she landed on the sidewalk below. M.B.
-3-
Butler CA2019-08-146
testified that Baker and M.A.'s mother then "just kind of backed off" and "they couldn't care
less to help or to call or nothing." Seeing that M.B. was in need of medical attention, M.A.
drove her to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a broken right arm. Due to the
severity of the injury, M.B. testified that she had to have two metal plates put in her arm to
fix the break. M.B. testified that she is still seeking treatment for the injury "and now they're
actually at the point to almost wanting to do another surgery, because it won't heal."
{¶ 8} Following M.B.'s testimony, the state rested. Baker then moved the court for
acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A). Baker supported this motion by arguing the state failed
to prove venue was proper in the trial court since there was no "clear establishment of
jurisdiction." The trial court disagreed and overruled Baker's motion.
{¶ 9} T.A. testified in Baker's defense. T.A. testified that there was an "incident"
inside his home between his daughter, Baker, and his son, M.A., on the evening of March
17, 2019. Describing this incident, T.A. testified that M.A. had gone inside his house to see
his daughter. Once inside, T.A. testified that M.A. was told that he could not see his
daughter if M.B. was with him. T.A. testified that M.A. then "verbally chewed out" his mother,
which prompted Baker to come downstairs and ask M.A. to leave. T.A. testified that M.A.
refused to leave and instead demanded to see his daughter. T.A. testified that Baker then
told M.A. "no, you need to get out now" as M.A.'s mother pushed him out the door.
{¶ 10} Once M.A. was outside, T.A. testified that "[Baker] went after him and said
you need to get off the property." T.A. testified that M.B. was at that time recording the
incident with her phone through the passenger side window of M.A.'s truck. Seeing that
M.B. was recording, T.A. testified that Baker ran over to M.B., grabbed the phone out of
M.B.'s hand, and took off running back towards the house. T.A. testified that M.A. then
chased after Baker and put her in a choke hold. T.A. testified that M.B. then started to get
out of M.A.'s truck when "she fell and broke her arm." According to T.A., Baker "was not
-4-
Butler CA2019-08-146
nowhere around" M.B. when "she jumped down to get out and hit the ground."
{¶ 11} Baker then testified. Baker testified that she came downstairs after hearing
M.A. "screaming and cussing" at their mother. During this time, Baker testified that she
heard M.A. call their mother "a piece of crap mother, and, but not so nice words, and hit the
table." To this, Baker testified that she asked M.A. to leave. Baker testified that M.A. then
started "cussing and screaming" at her. Baker testified that she then tried to push M.A. out
the door. However, according to Baker, M.A. pulled on her arm and pulled her out the door
with him. Baker testified that M.A. then pointed to M.B. and told her to start recording.
Describing what happened next, Baker testified:
And as we were going towards the truck, my brother stepped in
front of me to stop me, I pushed on him. He – my mom is pulling
on him, and then I got away from my brother, I went over to the
truck, I grabbed the phone, and my exact words, excuse my
language, I said, didn't get what happened inside, bitch.
I then took the phone out of her hand, walked away from the
truck. And my brother said give her back the phone, I turn
around, and I said I will give back the phone when the cops get
here. Put the phone in my pocket.
{¶ 12} Continuing, Baker testified:
My brother – and then I turned around and walked away, my
brother chases me, jumps on my back, puts his arm around my
neck, and I was going blue, and all I heard was my mom yelling,
[M.B.] broke her arm.
That's when my brother finally let go of me, and then I turned
around, threw the phone at him, because I didn't want to get in
trouble for theft, threw the phone at him and dad – my dad
yelled, I called 911, and my brother jumped in the truck and he
said f*** the cops, and sped off.
{¶ 13} Explaining further how she took M.B.'s phone from her, Baker testified that
she "grabbed from the top, and ripped it out of her hand[.]" When asked if it was just that
easy to take M.B.'s phone from her, Baker testified "I don't know if I was stronger that day
or what, honestly." Baker then rested.
-5-
Butler CA2019-08-146
{¶ 14} After hearing closing arguments from both parties, the trial court issued its
decision finding Baker guilty as charged. In reaching this decision, the trial court noted that
it had found M.B.'s testimony credible, whereas Baker's testimony was not. As the trial
court stated:
[T]here is no dispute that Ms. Baker came up to the truck and
just grabbed the phone [from M.B.] Now, whether or not – Ms.
Baker says she didn't touch [M.B.]. [M.B.] says she touched her
and dragged her out of the truck.
So I do not find – I find [M.B.'s] testimony more credible than
Ms. Baker's testimony, at least in regards to contact with [M.B.].
I do not believe Ms. Baker didn't touch [M.B.] when she grabbed
the phone. I do not find that credible. I find [M.B.] credible on
that.
{¶ 15} Upon finding Baker guilty, the trial court sentenced Baker to 180 days in jail,
with all 180 days suspended, placed Baker on two years of community control, and ordered
Baker to pay a $300 fine plus court costs. The trial court also ordered Baker to pay
$4,183.60 in restitution for the medical expenses M.B. incurred to treat her broken right arm.
Baker now appeals her conviction, raising four assignments of error for review.
{¶ 16} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 17} MS. BAKER'S FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE
PROCESS AND FAIR TRIAL WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT OVERRULED
HER CRIMINAL RULE 29 MOTION AFTER THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE THE FACT
OF VENUE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
{¶ 18} In her first assignment of error, Baker argues the trial court erred by denying
her Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal since there was insufficient evidence to prove venue
beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.
{¶ 19} The standard of review for a denial of a Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal is
the same as the standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim. State v.
-6-
Butler CA2019-08-146
Robinson, 12th Dist. No. CA2015-01-013, 2015-Ohio-4533, ¶ 37. When reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, an appellate court examines
the evidence to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average
mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Intihar, 12th Dist. Warren
CA2015-05-046, 2015-Ohio-5507, ¶ 9. The relevant inquiry is "whether, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v.
Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. This test "requires a
determination as to whether the state has met its burden of production at trial." State v.
Boles, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2012-06-012, 2013-Ohio-5202, ¶ 34, citing State v. Wilson,
12th Dist. Warren No. CA2006-01-007, 2007-Ohio-2298, ¶ 33.
{¶ 20} "Venue commonly refers to the appropriate place of trial for a criminal
prosecution within a state." State v. Meridy, 12th Dist. Clermont. No. CA2003-11-091,
2005-Ohio-241, ¶ 12. "The importance of venue is to give the defendant the right to be tried
in the vicinity of his alleged criminal activity." State v. Workman, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos.
CA2016-12-082 and CA2016-12-083, 2017-Ohio-8638, ¶ 58. "Venue is not a material
element of any offense charged." State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2015-12-022,
2017-Ohio-495, ¶ 22. However, although not a material element of any offense, venue is
nevertheless "a fact that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt." State v.
McCollum, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-11-077, 2015-Ohio-3286, ¶ 8, citing State v.
Stone, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2007-11-132, 2008-Ohio-5671, ¶ 17. "When the state fails
to prove venue with respect to a charged criminal offense, the defendant is entitled to be
discharged from that offense." Id., citing State v. Lahmann, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-
03-058, 2007-Ohio-1795, ¶19.
{¶ 21} "Pursuant to R.C. 2901.12(A), venue lies in any jurisdiction in which the
-7-
Butler CA2019-08-146
offense or any element of the offense was committed." State v. Vunda, 12th Dist. Butler
Nos. CA2012-07-130 and CA2013-07-113, 2014-Ohio-3449, ¶ 29. "Venue need not be
proven in express terms; it may be established either directly or indirectly by all the facts
and circumstances of the case." State v. Jackson, 141 Ohio St. 3d 171, 2014-Ohio-3707, ¶
144, citing State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St. 3d 475, 477 (1983). "'Venue is satisfied where there
is a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the county of the trial.'" State v. Behanan,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-10-266, 2010-Ohio-4403, ¶ 19, quoting State v. Chintalapalli,
88 Ohio St. 3d 43, 45 (2000), citing State v. Draggo, 65 Ohio St. 2d 88, 92 (1981). "Trial
courts have broad discretion to determine the facts that would establish venue." Jackson,
citing Toledo v. Taberner, 61 Ohio App. 3d 791, 793 (6th Dist.1989).
{¶ 22} Baker argues the trial court erred by denying her Crim.R. 29(A) motion for
acquittal since M.B. testified that she was unsure of where the assault took place, believing
it occurred at 96 Whitaker Avenue, Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio when the record indicates
the assault actually occurred at 96 Whitaker Avenue, New Miami, Butler County, Ohio.
However, regardless of whether the assault took place in Hamilton or New Miami, the trial
court has territorial jurisdiction over both Hamilton and New Miami as set forth in R.C.
1901.02(B).1
{¶ 23} Pursuant to R.C. 1901.02(B), the trial court "has jurisdiction within Ross and
St. Clair townships in Butler county." "The Village of New Miami is in St. Clair Township
located just north of the city of Hamilton." Barrow v. New Miami, Butler C.P. No. CV2013
07 2047, 2017 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 18638, *2 (Feb. 8, 2017). "A municipal court in Ohio has
jurisdiction over misdemeanors occurring within its territorial jurisdiction." State v. Mbodji,
129 Ohio St. 3d 325, 2011-Ohio-2880, ¶ 11. In turn, when considering Hamilton and New
1. "Municipal court jurisdiction has often been referred to as 'territorial jurisdiction' and, as such, is essentially
the same as venue." State v. Sunday, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22917, 2006-Ohio-2984, ¶ 10.
-8-
Butler CA2019-08-146
Miami are both within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction, any rational trier of fact could
have found the state had proven venue beyond a reasonable doubt. This is because, as
noted above, venue need not be proven in express terms so long as the facts and
circumstances of the case demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the
trial court's territorial jurisdiction. Such is the case here. See generally State v. Lunsford,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-07-116, 2020-Ohio-965 (affirming appellant's conviction for
assault in the Hamilton Municipal Court that occurred in New Miami). Therefore, finding no
error in the trial court's decision denying Baker's Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal, Baker's
first assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.
{¶ 24} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 25} MS. BAKER'S FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE
PROCESS AND FAIR TRIAL WERE VIOLATED WHEN SHE RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
{¶ 26} In her second assignment of error, Baker argues she received ineffective
assistance of counsel when her trial counsel put forth a defense that elicited testimony
conclusively establishing that the assault occurred at 96 Whitaker Avenue, New Miami,
Butler County, Ohio and not, as M.B. testified, 96 Whitaker Avenue, Hamilton, Butler
County, Ohio. However, as discussed more fully above, regardless of whether the assault
took place in Hamilton or New Miami, the trial court has territorial jurisdiction over both as
set forth in R.C. 1901.02(B). Therefore, because any rational trier of fact could have found
the state had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that venue was proper in the trial court
based on M.B.'s testimony alone, Baker's trial counsel did not provide Baker with ineffective
assistance of counsel by putting forth a defense that elicited testimony conclusively
establishing that the assault occurred in New Miami and not Hamilton. Accordingly, finding
Baker did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, Baker's second assignment of error
-9-
Butler CA2019-08-146
lacks merit and is overruled.
{¶ 27} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 28} MS. BAKER'S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 29} In her third assignment of error, Baker argues her conviction was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶ 30} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge examines the "inclination of the
greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue rather
than the other." State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶
14. To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this
court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences,
consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the 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. State v. Wilks, 154
Ohio St. 3d 359, 2018-Ohio-1562, ¶ 168. While a manifest weight of the evidence review
requires this court to evaluate credibility, the determination of witness credibility is primarily
for the trier of fact to decide. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St. 2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of
the syllabus. This court will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of the evidence
only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily in
favor of acquittal. State v. Morgan, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2013-08-146 and CA2013-08-
147, 2014-Ohio-2472, ¶ 34.
{¶ 31} Baker was convicted of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), which provides
that "[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to
another's unborn." Baker argues her conviction must be reversed because the trial court
incorrectly weighed the evidence and failed to properly execute its factfinding
- 10 -
Butler CA2019-08-146
responsibilities since M.B.'s testimony regarding the assault lacked credibility. However,
contrary to Baker's claim, M.B.'s testimony, if believed, was sufficient to establish each and
every element of assault. State v. Channels, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19530, 2003-Ohio-
3830, ¶ 14. The fact that the trial court believed M.B.'s testimony over that of Baker does
not render Baker's conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence. Lunsford, 2020-
Ohio-965 at ¶ 14. A conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply
because the trier of fact believed the testimony offered by the prosecution. State v. Crossty,
12th Dist. Nos. CA2017-01-003 thru CA2017-01-005, 2017-Ohio-8267, ¶ 68. It is the trier
of fact and not this court on appeal that makes determinations of credibility and the weight
to be given to the evidence presented at trial. State v. Erickson, 12th Dist. Warren No.
CA2014-10-131, 2015-Ohio-2086, ¶ 42, citing DeHass, 10 Ohio St. 2d at paragraph one of
the syllabus. Therefore, because Baker's conviction was not against the manifest weight
of the evidence, Baker's third assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.
{¶ 32} Assignment of Error No. 4:
{¶ 33} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED MS. BAKER TO PAY A
TOTAL OF $4,183.60 IN RESTITUTION.
{¶ 34} In her fourth assignment of error, Baker argues the trial court erred by ordering
her to pay $4,183.60 in restitution for the medical expenses M.B. incurred to treat her broken
arm. Baker supports this claim by arguing the trial court's order requiring her to pay
restitution was not supported by competent and credible evidence. Baker's argument,
however, is nothing more than a challenge to the trial court's guilt finding. That is to say,
Baker is once again challenging the trial court's verdict finding she had knowingly caused
M.B. physical harm so as to support a conviction for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A).
Such a challenge lacks merit. This is because, as noted above, M.B.'s testimony, if
believed, was sufficient to establish each and every element of the offense. Therefore,
- 11 -
Butler CA2019-08-146
finding no error in the trial court's decision ordering Baker to pay $4,183.60 in restitution for
the medical expenses M.B. incurred to treat her broken arm, Baker's fourth assignment of
error lacks merit and is overruled.
{¶ 35} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.
- 12 -