Toledo v. Duckworth

[Cite as Toledo v. Duckworth, 2023-Ohio-1412.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
City of Toledo Court of Appeals No. L-22-1126
Appellee Trial Court No. CRB-21-08778
v.
Robyn M. Duckworth DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: April 28, 2023
*****
Rebecca Facey, City of Toledo Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and
Jimmie L. Jones, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Henry Schaefer, for appellant.
*****
DUHART, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Robyn Duckworth, appeals from a judgment entered by the
Toledo Municipal Court, finding her guilty of misdemeanor assault. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Statement of the Case
{¶ 2} On October 2, 2021, Duckworth was charged by complaint with one charge
of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree.
{¶ 3} On April 21, 2022, the matter proceeded to a bench trial, during which
Duckworth raised the affirmative defense of self-defense. After hearing the evidence and
arguments of counsel, Duckworth was found guilty. At sentencing on May 16, 2022, the
trial court imposed a 180-day suspended jail sentence. In addition, the trial court placed
Duckworth on one year of active community control, which was ordered to become
inactive upon Duckworth’s completion of anger management classes, 40 hours of
community service, and a letter of apology to the victim. Finally, the trial court ordered
that Duckworth have no contact with the victim or with the victim’s mother.
{¶ 4} Appellant timely appealed her conviction.
Statement of Facts
{¶ 5} On or around August 15, 2021, Duckworth became a tenant at 2257
Barrington Drive, Toledo, Ohio, where she rented a room from the victim’s mother. The
victim’s mother also resided at the location. Following a series of personal disputes that
arose between Duckworth and the victim’s mother, the victim’s mother soon asked
Duckworth to move out. According to the victim’s mother, the duration of Duckworth’s
tenancy was about six weeks.
{¶ 6} The victim testified that during the period that Duckworth was her mother’s
tenant, she would make frequent trips to Toledo from her home in New Jersey in order to
2.
check up on her mother. She also testified that she and her mother had installed security
cameras throughout the house, and that she was able to view the video feed from the
security cameras using her cell phone.
{¶ 7} On October 2, 2021, the victim, while visiting her mother at the Barrington
Drive residence, observed Duckworth go into the kitchen, where the victim’s mother was
preparing breakfast. The victim heard yelling, so she walked into the kitchen with her
phone camera on. Footage from the phone camera showed that Duckworth and the
victim’s mother were arguing. It also showed a continuing confrontation, during which
the victim and her mother laughed at Duckworth and called her a liar and a drug addict.
{¶ 8} Footage from one of the security cameras installed in the house showed that
Duckworth snatched the phone from the victim’s hand and then went to leave out the
back door. It also showed that the victim pursued Duckworth and grabbed at her from
behind. As the victim was grabbing at Duckworth’s back, Duckworth turned and, with
her body, pushed the victim against the wall. Duckworth then continued out the back
door. Once outside, additional security camera footage camera showed that the victim
again reached for Duckworth from behind. At this point, Duckworth turned around and
pushed the victim off of her body, causing the victim to fall onto a nearby flowerpot. As a
result of the fall, the victim suffered a concussion and deep bruising to her hip.
Trial Court Decision
{¶ 9} At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court explained its reasoning for
the finding of guilt against Duckworth as follows:
3.
The Court has had the opportunity to review the evidence, the applicable
law and has reached a decision. * * * In this case, based upon the evidence,
an Assault clearly happened. The issue really, at this point, is whether or
not the defendant acted in justifiable self-defense. In the way self-defense
laws work these days, the prosecution needs to prove, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that the defendant did not act in self-defense. In this particular case,
having reviewed the evidence, I believe the prosecution has indeed proven,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
And I say this for two reasons. One, as far as a physical confrontation goes,
Ms. Duckworth was clearly the instigator by taking the phone. Now,
whether or not [the victim] egged her on, by video taping her or by
laughing, that could be argued. But as far as a physical confrontation, it did
not get physical until Ms. Duckworth instigated the physical confrontation
by taking her phone. Secondly, while the majority of the injury looks like it
happened after they left the house, the physical confrontation also started
when the defendant, for the lack of a better term, body bumped [the victim]
right before leaving the house. And that is what led – from my view of the
evidence, on the video, led to [the victim] holding on to her, grabbing Ms.
Duckworth. So for these reasons, I find the defendant guilty.
Assignment of Error
{¶ 10} Appellant raises the following assignment of error on appeal:
4.
I. The conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and there
was not sufficient evidence to convict Ms. Duckworth.
Analysis
{¶ 11} In this appeal challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence,
Duckworth objects only to the trial court’s rejection of her affirmative defense of self-
defense. Specifically, Duckworth complains that: (1) the state did not provide legally
sufficient evidence to establish that she did not act in self-defense; and (2) the trial
court’s decision that she did not act in self-defense was against the weight of the
evidence.
{¶ 12} A defendant making a claim of self-defense involving the use of non-
deadly force must show that: “‘(1) he was not at fault in creating the situation that gave
rise to the affray; (2) he had reasonable grounds to believe or an honest belief that he or
she was in imminent danger of bodily harm, and (3) he did not use more force than was
reasonably necessary to defend against the imminent danger of bodily harm.’” State v.
Greer, 6th Dist. Lucas App. No. L-22-1082, 2023-Ohio-103, quoting State v. Paskins.
2022-Ohio-4024, --- N.E.3d ---, ¶ 48 (5th Dist.).
{¶ 13} “[A] defendant charged with an offense involving the use of force has the
burden of producing legally sufficient evidence that the defendant’s use of force was in
self-defense.” State v. Messenger, --- Ohio St.3d ---, 2022-Ohio-4562, --- N.E.3d ---. ¶
25. “[I]f the defendant’s evidence and any reasonable inferences about that evidence
would allow a rational trier of fact to find all the elements of a self-defense claim when
5.
viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, then the defendant has satisfied this
burden.” Id. Thus, the burden of production is on the defendant. Id. at ¶ 21. Once the
defendant satisfies this burden, it becomes the state’s duty to disprove self-defense
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at ¶ 27. That is, the burden of persuasion is on the state.
See Messenger at ¶ 26. The question of whether or not the state has met this burden is
subject only to a manifest-weight review on appeal. See id. at ¶ 27.
{¶ 14} In the instant case, the trial court, in considering whether the state met its
burden, implicitly concluded that Duckworth put forward sufficient evidence that she was
acting in self-defense when, twice, she pushed the victim away from her with her body.
See Messenger at ¶ 26 (concluding that the trial court’s providing the jury with an
instruction on self-defense meant that the trial court had already determined that the
defendant put forward sufficient evidence that he had acted in self-defense). The court
then explicitly concluded that the state met its burden of persuading the court beyond a
reasonable doubt that Duckworth was not acting in self-defense when she body-bumped
the victim and then pushed the victim to the ground.
{¶ 15} As established in Messenger, all that remains for our review is whether the
trial court’s determination that Duckworth was not acting in self-defense was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. “‘When examining whether a conviction was contrary to
the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court serves as a “thirteenth juror” to
conclude whether the trial court lost its way so significantly as to result in a manifest
miscarriage of justice, necessitating that the conviction be overturned.’” State v.
6.
Faulkner, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-22-1108, 2023-Ohio-971, ¶ 30, quoting State v. Butler,
6th Dist. Lucas No. L-08-1390, 2010-Ohio-178, ¶ 11.
{¶ 16} Here, the trial court expressly stated that in reaching its decision, it relied
upon video evidence. The video showed Duckworth taking the victim’s phone, creating
the situation that gave rise to the physical confrontation. Although Duckworth claims that
she was exercising her right to quiet enjoyment and her right to privacy when she took
the phone from the victim, the law is clear that this type of self-help is not allowed. See
State v. Thompson, 2017-Ohio-8375, 99 N.E.3d 1035 (10th Dist.) (rejecting defendant’s
claim of self-help in removing security cameras from the common area of an office in
order to abate an alleged nuisance). The video also shows Duckworth body-bumping the
victim against a wall and then throwing the victim to the ground. There was no
miscarriage of justice in this case, the trial court did not lose its way, and Duckworth’s
conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 17} For all of the foregoing reasons, appellant’s assignment of error is found
not well-taken. The judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court is affirmed. Appellant is
ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
7.
City of Toledo v.
Robyn Duckworth
C.A. No. L-22-1126
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
8.