State v. Fritts , 2020 Ohio 3692 ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Fritts, 2020-Ohio-3692.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO/CITY OF HAMILTON, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2019-10-173
: OPINION
- vs - 7/13/2020
:
RAY FRITTS, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. 19CRB02845
Neal D. Schuett, City of Hamilton Prosecuting Attorney, 345 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio
45011, for appellee
Christopher P. Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant
HENDRICKSON, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Ray Fritts, appeals from his conviction in the Hamilton Municipal
Court for domestic violence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm his conviction.
{¶ 2} On August 6, 2019, appellant was charged by complaint with domestic
violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. The charge
arose out of an incident that occurred between appellant and his wife, Theresa Smith, at
Butler CA2019-10-173
their marital home in Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio on August 5, 2019, wherein appellant
choked Smith and pushed her to the ground, causing Smith physical harm.
{¶ 3} Appellant pled not guilty to the charge and a bench trial commenced on
September 10, 2019. The state presented testimony from Smith and from Officer Ed
Prather. Smith testified that she has been married to appellant since November 19, 2018.
Around 7:30 p.m. on August 5, 2019, Smith and appellant were eating dinner in their dining
room in the home they shared in Hamilton, Ohio. At this time, Smith informed appellant that
she wanted a divorce and the two started arguing. Smith testified appellant got up from the
table and briefly left the room. Appellant then came back into the dining room, put his
fingers over Smith's nose and stated, "I'm trying to decide on how I'm going to dispose of
you." As Smith stood up from the table with her cell phone in hand, appellant pushed her
into a doorway and grabbed her throat. Smith testified she started hitting appellant with her
cell phone and was able to get free from appellant's grasp. Smith shouted for help and for
someone to call the police.
{¶ 4} As Smith attempted to get away from appellant, appellant shoved her and
caused her to fall. Appellant sat on top of Smith and began choking her again. Smith
testified appellant "was trying to kill me. He was trying to rip my throat up." Smith stated
she "continuously hit" appellant with her phone to try to get him off of her. At some point,
appellant grabbed the phone from Smith and she was able to get free. Smith crawled
underneath a table and was able to get outside, where she told a neighbor to call police.
Immediately thereafter, appellant left the marital home in his car.
{¶ 5} Smith estimated that the entire incident with appellant took approximately five
minutes and that the police arrived within ten minutes of being called by her neighbor. Smith
testified she was harmed during the attack, noting that she had "scrapes all over [her] back"
and "marks all over [her] neck" from being choked.
-2-
Butler CA2019-10-173
{¶ 6} Officer Prather testified he is employed by the Hamilton Police Department
and was dispatched to Smith's and appellant's home on August 5, 2019 on a report of
domestic violence. Officer Prather was advised by Smith that Smith's husband had thrown
her to the ground and choked her. The officer testified he observed some redness to
Smith's neck that was, in his experience, consistent with someone being choked. The
officer also observed some marks and fresh scratches to Smith's back.
{¶ 7} Officer Prather testified appellant was not on scene when he arrived.
Appellant was stopped in his vehicle by a police officer in New Miami, Ohio and was held
until Officer Prather could pick him up. Officer Prather testified that upon encountering
appellant, he observed scratches to appellant's arm, chest, and face.
{¶ 8} Following Officer Prather's testimony, the state rested its case-in-chief.
Appellant moved for acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29, and the court denied the motion.
Thereafter, appellant took the stand in his own defense, testifying that on the night in
question, he informed Smith he wanted a divorce while the two were eating dinner. In
response, Smith briefly left the dining room before coming back a few seconds later and
attacking him. Appellant claimed Smith started hitting him in the chest and accused him of
cheating on her. According to appellant, Smith repeatedly struck him in the chest before
scratching his face. Once Smith scratched him, appellant claimed he pushed Smith away
before getting in his car and driving towards a relative's home in Eaton, Ohio. Appellant
testified he was stopped by law enforcement in New Miami and held until a Hamilton police
officer arrived to arrest him. Appellant's arrest photograph, which showed appellant with
scratches to his face, was admitted into evidence.
{¶ 9} Appellant denied that he pushed Smith to the ground or that he punched,
choked, or scratched her. He stated the only time he was aggressive towards Smith was
when he pushed her away after Smith attacked him. Appellant denied knowledge of how
-3-
Butler CA2019-10-173
Smith obtained the marks around her neck and claimed that any injuries Smith had were
likely incurred from her work at a warehouse.
{¶ 10} After considering the evidence presented before it, the trial court found
appellant guilty of domestic violence. The court noted that "when Ms. Smith testified, the
Court believed that she was testifying truthfully and honestly." The court indicated it did not
believe that Smith was hiding anything, noting that "[s]he told the parts of the case that
weren't helpful to her. She admitted that there * * * might be injury to [appellant] based on
what she might have done in reaction to his injuries towards her." Conversely, when
appellant testified, "the Court [did] not find [him] to be truthful and honest." The court noted
that under appellant's version of events, there would have been "no real reason for a
neighbor to call police if what he said happened" actually occurred. The court further noted
that appellant's version of events did not explain the marks on Smith's neck, which were
observed by Officer Prather – who had no reason to lie about the injuries. The court
concluded that the state proved all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
and disproved self-defense "mainly because the Court did not believe the Defendant's
version of him being the person who was the victim here and who was being struck by Ms.
Smith, but instead, the Court believed Ms. Smith's version about how this incident started
and about how the contact started."
{¶ 11} The trial court sentenced appellant to two years of community control and 180
days in jail, with 120 days suspended. The court ordered appellant to take an anger
management class and to pay a $250 fine plus court costs.
{¶ 12} Appellant appealed, raising the following as his only assignment of error:
{¶ 13} [APPELLANT'S] CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 14} In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends his conviction for domestic
-4-
Butler CA2019-10-173
violence is against the manifest weight of the evidence. He argues that Smith lacked
credibility and that the evidence introduced at trial, including his arrest photograph and
Officer Prather's testimony that he observed scratches to appellant's arm, chest and face,
established that Smith was the physical aggressor in the altercation.
{¶ 15} 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, 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 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.
{¶ 16} Appellant was convicted of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A),
which provides that "[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm
to a family or household member." 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). A "family or household member"
-5-
Butler CA2019-10-173
includes any person who is residing or has resided with the offender as a spouse. R.C.
2919.25(F)(1)(a)(i). Physical harm is "any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment
regardless of its gravity or duration." R.C. 2901.01(A)(3).
{¶ 17} Appellant denies that he knowingly caused physical harm to Smith by choking
her or shoving her to the ground. He claims he merely pushed Smith away from him after
she started hitting him in the chest and scratched his face. Appellant, therefore, contends
he acted in self-defense in shoving Smith.
{¶ 18} "Traditionally, self-defense has been an affirmative defense which an accused
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Debord, 12th Dist. Clinton No.
CA2019-03-003, 2020-Ohio-57, ¶ 13. However, effective March 28, 2019, the General
Assembly modified Ohio's self-defense statute, R.C. 2901.05, in Am.Sub.H.B. 228 to place
the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not act in
self-defense. State v. Byrd, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2019-07-073, 2020-Ohio-3073, ¶ 22.
As amended, R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) provides as follows:
A person is allowed to act in self-defense, defense, of another,
or defense of that person's residence. If, at the trial of a person
who is accused of an offense that involved the person's use of
force against another, there is evidence presented that tends to
support that the accused person used the force in self-defense,
defense of another, or defense of that person's residence, the
prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused person did not use the force in self-defense, defense
of another, or defense of that person's residence, as the case
may be.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 19} An accused is justified in the use of force against another if (1) the accused
was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) the accused had a bona
fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only
means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force; and (3) the accused did
-6-
Butler CA2019-10-173
not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger. State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St. 2d 74
(1979), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St. 3d 21, 24 (2002). Due
to the recent amendment to R.C. 2901.05(B)(1), the state had to disprove one of the
aforementioned elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Byrd at ¶ 23,
citing State v. Carney, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-402, 2020-Ohio-2691, ¶ 31.
{¶ 20} After reviewing the record, weighing inferences and examining the credibility
of the witnesses, we find that appellant's conviction for domestic violence was not against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Contrary to appellant's assertions, the greater amount
of credible evidence offered at a trial supported Smith's version of events and established
beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was the initial aggressor in the attack. Although
appellant denies he initiated the attack on Smith, claiming he only "pushed" Smith away
from him after she repeatedly struck him in the chest and scratched his face, the evidence
introduced by the state was wholly inconsistent with appellant's version of events. Smith
testified appellant attacked her first, causing physical harm to her back and neck when he
shoved her to the ground, sat on top of her, and choked her after she asked for a divorce.
Officer Prather testified he saw Smith's injuries, noting that there were "fresh" scrapes to
Smith's back and redness around her neck that was, in his experience, consistent with
someone having been recently choked. The trial court was entitled to rely on Smith's and
Officer Prather's testimony in finding the injuries were caused by appellant's attack and
were not workplace injuries as appellant claimed.
{¶ 21} The trial court was also entitled to find that the scrapes to appellant's face,
arm, and chest were caused by Smith's struggle to free herself from appellant's grasp during
his attack, rather than caused by an attack initiated by Smith. The trial court was presented
with conflicting versions of events by the witnesses. "[W]hen conflicting evidence is
presented at trial, a conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply
-7-
Butler CA2019-10-173
because the trier of fact believed the prosecution testimony." State v. Lunsford, 12th Dist.
Brown No. CA2010-10-021, 2011-Ohio-6529, ¶ 17.
{¶ 22} Accordingly, as the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant
was the initial aggressor and that he knowingly caused physical harm to his wife by shoving
her to the ground and choking her, we conclude that appellant's conviction for domestic
violence is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's sole assignment of
error is overruled.
{¶ 23} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
-8-