State v. George ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. George, 2023-Ohio-2016.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2022-10-093
: OPINION
- vs - 6/20/2023
:
TYLER R. GEORGE, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. 22CRB01936-A
Laura Gibson, City of Hamilton Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Christopher P. Frederick, for appellant.
HENDRICKSON, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Tyler R. George, appeals from his conviction in the Hamilton
Municipal Court for cruelty to a companion animal. For the reasons set forth below, we
affirm his conviction.
{¶ 2} On August 24, 2022, appellant was charged by complaint with one count of
cruelty to a companion animal in violation of R.C. 959.131(B), a misdemeanor of the first
degree. The charges arose out of allegations that on August 22, 2022, appellant struck his
Butler CA2022-10-093
dog, a pit bull named "Lady Bear," multiple times with a bat at his home in Hamilton, Ohio.
{¶ 3} Appellant pled not guilty to the charge and a bench trial was held on
September 14, 2022. The state presented testimony from appellant's next-door neighbor
Christy Case and from Deputy Megan Niehaus, a Humane Agent and Dog Warden with the
Butler County Sheriff's Office. Case testified that as appellant's neighbor, she is aware that
appellant has two smaller dogs that are chihuahuas and one larger dog that is a pit bull.
Case has a Ring doorbell camera, or a security camera, on both her front and back doors.
The Ring cameras are activated by movement. At approximately 12:18 p.m. on August 22,
2022, Case's backdoor Ring camera was activated by motion and she received an alert on
her cell phone. She accessed the Ring camera's footage, which displayed her backyard
and a portion of appellant's backyard. The footage, which contained both a video and an
audio display, captured appellant "beating his dog, the biggest dog with a baseball bat."
{¶ 4} Case contacted the Butler County Dog Warden to report appellant's actions,
and she provided the dog warden with a copy of the Ring doorbell security footage. Later
that week, Case spoke with appellant about the incident. Case indicated appellant
apologized to her and stated he "regretted beating her, beating the dog." Appellant told
Case that he beat the dog after arriving home and finding out that one of the chihuahuas
had been injured by the pit bull. Case did not know whether the bat appellant used to beat
the pit bull was a "wiffle bat" or an "actual bat."
{¶ 5} Deputy Niehaus testified that after receiving Case's report of the incident, she
watched the Ring security footage. The footage, which was played at trial and admitted
into evidence, showed appellant following the pit bull around the backyard and striking the
dog three times with a bat, all while screaming profanities at it.
{¶ 6} On August 23, 2022, the day after the incident, Deputy Niehaus went to
appellant's home and spoke with him. Appellant advised Deputy Niehaus that he was
-2-
Butler CA2022-10-093
"punishing [the pit bull] for biting his smaller dog" and that he had used a "child's bat."
Although appellant offered to show Deputy Niehaus the bat he used to strike Lady Bear,
Deputy Niehaus declined to look at it. At trial, Deputy Niehaus indicated she did not look at
the bat or procure it as evidence as she felt the Ring doorbell security footage provided
enough evidence of appellant's wrongdoing.
{¶ 7} Lady Bear was removed from appellant's custody on August 23, 2022 and
examined by a veterinarian the following day. Lady Bear did not exhibit any visible physical
injuries. However, Deputy Niehaus testified Lady Bear exhibited behavior that indicated
she was afraid of being struck. Lady Bear flinched and dropped to the ground when being
scanned for a microchip.
{¶ 8} Following Deputy Niehaus's testimony, the state rested its case. Appellant
moved for acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29, but his motion was denied. Thereafter,
appellant took the stand in his own defense. Appellant claimed that when he arrived at
home for a lunch break on August 22, 2022, his wife informed him that Lady Bear had
"attacked" one of the chihuahuas. The chihuahua had two visible injuries to its side and
had to be treated by a veterinarian. Appellant stated he "freaked," "lost [his] mind," and
"grabbed the first thing [he] s[aw] in the yard, which was that red bat." Appellant testified
that the bat was a "plastic kid's bat." He denied using the bat to injure Lady Bear, claiming
he only used it to scare the dog by hitting the fence and bushes.
{¶ 9} Appellant admitted to striking Lady Bear with the bat one time. He claimed
the Ring security footage did not accurately portray his interaction with Lady Bear as the
video did not show that he "barely hit her * * *[as] [t]he branches and the fence took the
impact." He claimed that "[t]he video sounds worser than what it really was." The plastic
bat appellant claimed to have used to strike Lady Bear was admitted into evidence as a
defense exhibit, as were pictures of the injuries Lady Bear caused to the chihuahua.
-3-
Butler CA2022-10-093
{¶ 10} Following closing arguments by the parties, the court took the matter under
advisement. A few days later, on September 16, 2022, the trial court found appellant guilty
of cruelty to a companion animal. In finding appellant guilty, the court noted that appellant's
testimony was "less than fully credible" whereas testimony from the state's witnesses "was
completely and totally unbiased, from people that didn't have any axe to grind with
[appellant]." Relying on the Ring doorbell footage, the court stated the following:
The doorbell, the video from this case, shows the [appellant]
with a baseball bat violently striking his dog multiple times. He
is in an uncontrollable rage. He is yelling. He even said in his
testimony he lost his mind. The anger in his voice is evident as
it can be, as he is using curse words as he is striking his dog,
which I'm not going to repeat because they're too foul with – too
disturbing to try and think about all of that again.
***
Well, animal cruelty is exactly what he did. He terrorized the
dog. And if you look at the video, you can't come to any other
conclusion other than that. And I'm finding him to be guilty.
***
His – his defense also involved the fact that he used a bat that
was a plastic bat. It's a hard plastic bat, that if you struck a
person in the face with it, you would probably break their face.
You would probably take their – ruin their vision. You would
cause welts on it at the very least. It's a weapon and it can
cause serious physical harm. To me it's not a defense, it's part
of the problem.
The fact that there was no injuries that were noted by a
veterinary exam the day after the incident, that doesn't mean
that he didn't terrorize the dog that day, because he did.
***
[A]nd then finally, the [appellant] knew he did wrong. He
apologized to his neighbor for doing it. And so for all of those
reasons, I'm going to find the [appellant] to be guilty.
The court subsequently sentenced appellant to 90 days in jail, with all 90 days suspended,
-4-
Butler CA2022-10-093
imposed two years of supervised community control, and ordered Lady Bear to be turned
over to the Butler County Dog Warden.
{¶ 11} Appellant appealed his conviction, raising two assignments of error for review.
As the assignments of error are related, we address them together.
{¶ 12} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 13} MR. GEORGE'S FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO
DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT
OVERRULED HIS CRIMINAL RULE 29 MOTION AFTER THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT MR. GEORGE KNOWINGLY COMMITTED AN
ACT OF CRUELTY AGAINST HIS PIT BULL, LADY BEAR.
{¶ 14} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 15} MR. GEORGE'S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE AS THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT RENDER AN APPROPRIATE
VERDICT IN LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL.
{¶ 16} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in denying
his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal because the state failed to present proof beyond a
reasonable doubt that Lady Bear "suffered from an act of cruelty." In his second assignment
of error, he argues his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence as the
evidence did not demonstrate he "knowingly" inflicted cruelty on Lady Bear. Rather,
appellant contends that the evidence introduced at trial "[a]t best * * * indicated [he] acted
recklessly or negligently when he punished Lady Bear." He further contends that the
manifest weight of the evidence does not support a finding that he "was aware his discipline
could have caused unjustifiable pain and suffering" by Lady Bear.
{¶ 17} Crim.R. 29(A) provides that "[t]he court on motion of a defendant or on its own
motion, after the evidence on either side is closed, shall order the entry of a judgment of
-5-
Butler CA2022-10-093
acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment, information, or complaint, if the
evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses." An appellate
court reviews the denial of a Crim.R. 29(A) motion under the same standard as that used
to review a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. State v. Haines, 12th Dist. Clermont No.
CA2021-07-040, 2022-Ohio-1145, ¶ 32.
{¶ 18} Whether the evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict
is a question of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997); State v. Grinstead,
194 Ohio App.3d 755, 2011-Ohio-3018, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.). When reviewing the sufficiency
of the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, an appellate court examines the evidence
in order to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind
of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Paul, 12th Dist. Fayette No.
CA2011-10-026, 2012-Ohio-3205, ¶ 9. Therefore, "[t]he 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.
{¶ 19} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge, on the other hand, 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, the reviewing 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. Graham, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-07-095, 2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66.
"While appellate review includes the responsibility to consider the credibility of witnesses
-6-
Butler CA2022-10-093
and weight given to the evidence, 'these issues are primarily matters for the trier of fact to
decide.'" State v. Barnes, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010-06-009, 2011-Ohio-5226, ¶ 81,
quoting State v. Walker, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-04-085, 2007-Ohio-911, ¶ 26. An
appellate court, therefore, 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. Id., citing Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387. Furthermore,
although the legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are
both quantitatively and qualitatively different, "[a] determination that a conviction is
supported by the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of
sufficiency." State v. Jones, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-03-049, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 19.
{¶ 20} Appellant was convicted of cruelty against a companion animal in violation of
R.C. 959.131(B), which provides that "[n]o person shall knowingly torture, torment,
needlessly mutilate or maim, cruelly beat, poison, needlessly kill, or commit an act of cruelty
against a companion animal." The statute provides that the terms "cruelty," "torment," and
"torture" have the same meanings as in R.C. 1717.01. R.C. 959.131(A)(2). Pursuant to
1717.01(B), "'[c]ruelty,' 'torment,' and 'torture' include every act, omission, or neglect by
which unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused, permitted or allowed to
continue, when there is a reasonable remedy or relief." A person acts knowingly when,
regardless of purpose, the person is aware that the person's conduct will probably cause a
certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. R.C. 2901.22(B).
{¶ 21} After reviewing the record, weighing inferences and examining the credibility
of the witnesses, we find that appellant's conviction for cruelty to a companion animal is
supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The state presented testimony and evidence from which the trier of fact could have found
all the essential elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Ring
-7-
Butler CA2022-10-093
doorbell security footage clearly showed appellant in a profanity-laden rage swinging a bat
at Lady Bear and striking the dog multiple times. The video footage combined with
appellant's admission to Case that he "beat" Lady Bear and his admission to Deputy
Niehaus that he struck the pit bull demonstrated that he tortured and cruelly beat his
companion animal.
{¶ 22} Contrary to his assertions, the record demonstrates appellant acted knowingly
when he grabbed the bat and struck Lady Bear with it multiple times. Regardless of whether
his intent was to "discipline" the dog as he claims, appellant was aware that striking Lady
Bear repeatedly with a bat was cruel and brought about unnecessary pain and suffering to
the dog. The fact that there were no visible injuries to Lady Bear did not mean that Lady
Bear did not suffer unnecessary pain or suffering. The dog can be seen on the video
footage trying to dart away from appellant's beating and when she was examined in the
days following the attack, she exhibited signs of trauma by flinching and dropping to the
ground when being scanned for a microchip. Furthermore, as appellant was charged under
division (B) of R.C. 959.131 rather than division (C) of the statute, the state was not required
to prove "serious physical harm" to Lady Bear to sustain a conviction against appellant.
See State v. Banks, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-200395 and C-200396, 2021-Ohio-4330, ¶
27-31 (finding a defendant's convictions for cruelty to companion animals were supported
by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the
dogs who had been stuck with a rod multiple times were cowered, though without visible
injuries).
{¶ 23} The trier of fact heard testimony from appellant that he did not harm Lady
Bear, but merely scared her by primarily hitting the fence and trees in the backyard. The
trial court compared appellant's testimony of the actions he took to "discipline" his dog to
the Ring security footage, which captured appellant's words and actions on August 22,
-8-
Butler CA2022-10-093
2022. We have reviewed the security footage and agree with the trial court that
aggressively striking a dog with a hard plastic bat numerous times while in a fit of rage does
not amount to discipline. Not only was the alleged "discipline" administered by appellant
remote in time from the incident in which Lady Bear injured the smaller dog, but his actions
were excessive and amounted to cruelty, torture, and torment as defined by R.C.
1717.01(B).
{¶ 24} Accordingly, given the evidence admitted at trial, we find that appellant's
conviction of cruelty to a companion animal is supported by sufficient evidence and is not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's first and second assignments of
error are overruled.
{¶ 25} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ.., concur.
-9-