State v. Harrison

[Cite as State v. Harrison, 2023-Ohio-471.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-220171
TRIAL NO. B-2103944
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
:
VS. O P I N I O N.
:
EMMANUEL HARRISON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: February 17, 2023
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant
Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BERGERON, Judge.
{¶1} After victim Michell Harrison invited her husband, defendant-appellant
Emmanuel Harrison, over for help with an innocuous task, an argument broke out that
ultimately left her with scratches on her neck and bruises on her chest and arm. In the
wake of this incident, Mr. Harrison was indicted for domestic violence in violation of
R.C. 2919.25(A), and his offense was raised to a felony of the fourth degree due to a
previous conviction for domestic violence. See R.C. 2919.25(D)(3). At trial, the state
presented Ms. Harrison as one of the key witnesses necessary to secure a conviction.
In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Harrison protests that his conviction ran afoul of
the manifest weight of the evidence, highlighting his wife’s muddled testimony at trial.
Based on our review of the record, however, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and
overrule his assignment of error.
I.
{¶2} At 10 a.m. on July 31, 2021, Denise Rector, the property manager of
Ms. Harrison’s apartment building, called 911 upon discovering Mr. Harrison
sleeping underneath the stairwell of the complex. 1 Ms. Rector had advised Mr.
Harrison several times before to stay off the property due to previous instances of
trespassing. Although Mr. and Ms. Harrison were married for ten years and had a
daughter together, the two no longer lived together.
{¶3} Ms. Harrison testified that she asked Mr. Harrison to come over on
July 31 to help assemble their daughter’s bed. He arrived in the early evening, at
1It is important to highlight that Mr. Harrison in his brief, Ms. Harrison in her testimony, and the
trial court on the record all mistakenly indicated that the 911 call from Ms. Rector occurred the
morning of August 1, after the altercation. But as discussed below, Officer Genesis Steele clarified
during her testimony, after reviewing the Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) report, that Ms. Rector
called 911 on the morning of July 31.
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
least before 6 p.m., already nursing some grievances. The two proceeded to share
drinks, which apparently accelerated his disquietude. After using the restroom, Mr.
Harrison accused his wife of “sleeping with the whole block” and tried to initiate sex
with her. After she rebuffed his advances, Mr. Harrison grabbed a knife and bent it
before leaving the room again.
{¶4} Ms. Harrison then grabbed a hammer in purported self-defense.
When her husband returned, he advanced on her, and in the melee, the hammer
struck her, and Mr. Harrison choked her. After Ms. Harrison fought him off, he
retreated to the kitchen, urinated on the floor, and left the apartment. Ms. Harrison
called 911 around 6 p.m., leading to Officer Genesis Steele’s arrival on the scene.
{¶5} While speaking with Ms. Harrison, Officer Steele noticed that she
appeared a bit intoxicated and agitated. Officer Steele explained to Ms. Harrison
that she had been made aware from other officers of a separate incident that had
occurred earlier that day concerning Mr. Harrison. In her testimony, Officer Steele
recalled reporting to her apartment on multiple occasions over the past couple of
years due to other incidents of domestic violence, menacing, trespassing,
arguments, and calls from neighbors concerning the couple.
{¶6} After Officer Steele left Ms. Harrison’s residence that evening, Mr.
Harrison returned, banging on the door and threatening his wife. Ms. Harrison then
called 911 again at 7 p.m. When Officer Steele returned, she described Ms. Harrison
as “very frantic * * * and upset.” Officer Steele stepped into the apartment to see if
Mr. Harrison was inside and noticed scratches and bruises on Ms. Harrison, which
she photographed. Officer Steele then called Mr. Harrison by phone, requesting
that he return to the apartment and explain his version of the encounter to her,
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
while also offering him his clothes and his medication. Officer Steele eventually
induced Mr. Harrison to comply, leading to his subsequent arrest.
{¶7} Although Officer Steele provided some clarity as to the incidents that
occurred on July 31, Ms. Harrison’s recollection of events on the stand is admittedly
confusing. To begin, she testified that Mr. Harrison was found under the stairs of
her apartment complex the morning after he had allegedly attacked her—even
though the CAD report from Ms. Rector that was offered into evidence during
Officer Steele’s testimony demonstrates that Ms. Rector called 911 before the
incident between the Harrisons.
{¶8} Perhaps related to this confusion, Ms. Harrison insisted that she
talked to Officer Steele at 10:30 on the morning of July 31, even though Officer
Steele refuted that notion because she was not on duty during that time. When
shown a video on the stand of her talking with Officer Steele, she insisted the
interaction happening the following morning, even though the timestamp indicated
6 p.m. Ms. Harrison further had trouble recalling when she called 911, confusion
she attributes to consuming alcohol during the relevant time period.
{¶9} In finding Mr. Harrison guilty, the trial court generally described the
incident between the Harrisons based on Ms. Harrison’s account, without getting
mired in the confusion about the timing of the 911 calls and the interactions with
Officer Steele. Because the Harrisons share a child together and because Mr.
Harrison had previously been convicted of domestic violence, the trial court found
Mr. Harrison guilty of domestic violence as a fourth-degree felony. Mr. Harrison
now appeals, challenging the credibility of Ms. Harrison’s testimony.
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
II.
{¶10} In reviewing whether the conviction runs counter to the manifest weight
of the evidence, we sit as a “thirteenth juror.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). In other words, we review the evidence, the credibility of
witnesses, and the entire record. Id. But we will only reverse if the trial court “ ‘clearly
lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must
be reversed and a new trial ordered.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d
172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983).
{¶11} And “it is well settled law that matters as to the credibility of witnesses
are for the trier of fact to resolve.” State v. Ham, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-170043,
2017-Ohio-9189, ¶ 21. “ ‘When conflicting evidence is presented at trial, a conviction
is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the trier of fact
believed the prosecution testimony.’ ” State v. Robinson, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2018-08-163, 2019-Ohio-3144, ¶ 29, quoting State v. Lunsford, 12th Dist. Brown
No. CA2010-10-021, 2011-Ohio-6529, ¶ 17.
{¶12} Ms. Harrison’s testimony certainly creates some confusion, but only as
it relates to the times when she interacted with the police, not as it pertains to Mr.
Harrison harming her. In fact, Mr. Harrison fails to challenge his wife’s testimony
related to her injuries, nor does he point to any sort of conflicting testimony or
evidence. Furthermore, Officer Steele’s testimony aptly provided clarity to Ms.
Harrison’s jumbled timeline. Not only did Officer Steele clarify how the incident
occurred on July 31 consistent with the CAD reports, Officer Steele’s previous
interactions with the Harrisons strengthened Ms. Harrison’s account: “I think that
maybe Ms. Harrison was confused. I do know them very well. I know that they have
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
occasion to partake in alcohol and drugs, and sometimes that can kind of distort
people’s memories or, you know, times and locations and stuff like that. * * * But she
was also frantic about what happened. And you know, in a domestic violence situation,
I can understand that, you know.”
{¶13} We take note that “[e]ven if * * * the witness[] admitted to being
intoxicated, for the purposes of our manifest weight of the evidence review, a witness’s
intoxication in and of itself is not a sufficient basis to completely undermine his or her
testimony absent something in the record demonstrating that the intoxication
rendered the witness incapable of accurately recalling the events.” State v. Melton,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103341, 2016-Ohio-1227, ¶ 7. “Thus, while intoxication is a
factor informing the credibility determination, it does not render the witness’s
testimony per se incredible.” Id. Even though Ms. Harrison’s intoxication may have
caused her to confuse some of the details of the night in question, she was able to
accurately recall the most important event on the night of July 31: Mr. Harrison’s
violence towards her.
{¶14} And a conviction for domestic violence does not require the state to
demonstrate when an incident occurred to the hour or when the victim notified the
police about the incident. See R.C. 2919.25(A). Coupled with Officer Steele’s
testimony, the trial court chose to believe Ms. Harrison as it related to the most
essential sequence of events leading to Mr. Harrison harming her. We see nothing in
the record that would cause us to question that credibility determination, nor did the
trial court “los[e] its way” in finding that Mr. Harrison harmed Ms. Harrison. See
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541.
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
* * *
{¶15} In light of the foregoing analysis, we overrule Mr. Harrison’s
assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
ZAYAS, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
7