State v. Beamer

[Cite as State v. Beamer, 2012-Ohio-2222.]
COURT OF APPEALS
COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
: Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
-vs- :
:
DEBBIE BEAMER : Case No. 11CA14
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Municipal Court,
Case No. 11CRB253
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 16, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
CHRISTIE M. L. NELSON JEFFREY G. KELLOGG
760 Chestnut Street 239 North Fourth Street
Coshocton, OH 43812 Coshocton, OH 43812
Coshocton County, Case No. 11CA14 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} On May 29, 2011, Coshocton County Sheriff's Deputy Jonathan Spohn
and EMS personnel were dispatched to investigate an unresponsive female in a motor
vehicle on a very hot day. The female was appellant, Debbie Beamer. After being
aroused, appellant refused treatment and became belligerent with Deputy Spohn and
the EMS personnel. As a result, appellant was charged with aggravated disorderly
conduct in violation of R.C. 2917.11.
{¶2} A bench trial commenced on July 20, 2011. By judgment entry filed
August 10, 2011, the trial court found appellant guilty and ordered her to pay a fine and
court costs.
{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
I
{¶4} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION."
I
{¶5} Appellant claims the trial court erred in finding her guilty of disorderly
conduct as there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We disagree.
{¶6} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State
v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259. "The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
Coshocton County, Case No. 11CA14 3
found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Jenks at
paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307.
{¶7} Appellant was convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of R.C.
2917.11(A)(2) which states the following:
{¶8} "(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm
to another by doing any of the following:
{¶9} "(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance,
gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any
person."
{¶10} Appellant argues none of her words were of such a level as to establish
any of the elements of R.C. 2917.11(A)(2). Appellant also argues her words were not
sufficient to offend law enforcement officers or medical personnel and did not constitute
a breach of the peace.
{¶11} "Punishment for disorderly conduct based on spoken words is prohibited
unless those words amount to 'fighting words.' See State v. Hoffman (1979), 57 Ohio
St.2d 129, 133, 387 N.E.2d 239; State v. Wood (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 621, 627, 679
N.E.2d 735. 'Fighting words' are those words that are likely by their very utterance to
inflict injury or to incite an immediate breach of the peace. State v. Thompson, 95 Ohio
St.3d 264, 265, 767 N.E.2d 251, 2002-Ohio-2124, citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
(1942) 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031. In determining whether
language rises to the level of 'fighting words,' courts look at the circumstances
surrounding the words. Hamilton v. Johnson (Dec. 3, 1999), Butler App. No. CA99-02-
Coshocton County, Case No. 11CA14 4
025, 1999 WL 1087024, *4, citing State v. Presley (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 721, 724,
612 N.E.2d 353.
{¶12} "This court has stated that 'profane words specifically and intentionally
directed to a * * * [police] officer usually constitute fighting words, while an inappropriate
and vulgar commentary about the situation, without more, is not punishable.' Johnson
at *4, citing Wood at 627-629, 679 N.E.2d 735. Words directed to a police officer that
courts have found to be 'fighting words' include, 'What are you going to do, asshole,
pig? You going to arrest me?' State v. Dickey (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 628, 630, 600
N.E.2d 365; 'I hate all of you fucking prick-ass cops * * * get out of my way you fucking
prick-ass cops,' Cincinnati v. Karlan (1974), 39 Ohio St.2d 107, 314 N.E.2d 162,
paragraph three of the syllabus; and 'You're a fucking jackass[.]' Johnson at *4. Words
directed to a police officer that, while vulgar, courts have not found to be 'fighting words'
include, 'stay away from the fucking door, get the fuck out of here,' Kent v. Kelley
(1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 43, 43, 337 N.E.2d 788; 'the police are worthless, this is f[ucking]
bullshit,' Toledo v. Grince (1989), 48 Ohio App.3d 126, 127, 548 N.E.2d 999; and 'go
ahead, tow the motherfucker[.]' State v. Lamm (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 510, 514, 609
N.E.2d 1286." Middletown v. Carpenter, Butler App. No. CA2006-01-004, 2006-Ohio-
3625, ¶14-15.
{¶13} Deputy Spohn testified he responded to a call relative to an unresponsive
female in the driver's seat of a vehicle in 90° heat. T. at 18-19. She had a "bag of
potato chips in her lap and potato chips were running from her mouth down her shirt, all
the way down." T. at 33-34. "[I]t seemed as if she had some kind of a medical
condition, some diabetic or something, I'm not so sure." T. at 34. Deputy Spohn
Coshocton County, Case No. 11CA14 5
attempted to wake her, but was unable to do so. T. at 18-19. EMS arrived and
removed appellant from the vehicle to make sure she was "medically okay." T. at 20.
Appellant refused to be checked out and told EMS " 'to leave her the fuck alone.' " Id.When told she had to be checked out "because of the temperature and possible medical
issues," appellant told them to " '[l]eave her alone' " and was "extremely belligerent." T.
at 21. Deputy Spohn testified to the following:
{¶14} "It states that when we woke [her] up and we advised her for medical
attention that she checked that she had indicated that I was 'a fucker.' There was
several people on the street, on the sidewalks, in the area obviously due to the fact that
we were there, the squad was there. I advised her that if she didn't calm down and stop
using the offensive language and be a little more quiet she would be arrested for
disorderly conduct." T. at 22.
{¶15} During the incident, people were congregating and appellant's comments
were loud enough to be heard. T. at 23, 32. Again, she said to Deputy Spohn " '[y]ou
are a fucker' " and Deputy Spohn placed her under arrest. T. at 23.
{¶16} Deputy Spohn testified appellant's language was not only offensive to him,
but to the EMS personnel and the spectators. T. at 23-24. Deputy Albert Havranek
corroborated his testimony. T. at 63. Melissa Leckrone, Brian Shueler, and Todd
Guthrie, EMS personnel, also testified appellant's language was angry and offensive
and was loud enough to be heard by the bystanders. T. at 41-42, 50-51, 55-56.
Appellant called the officers "pigs" and "squirrely ass pigs." T. at 42, 56, 60.
{¶17} Appellant testified she was not eating potato chips but chocolate frosting
out of a can. T. at 66. She fell asleep and the next thing she remembers was "being
Coshocton County, Case No. 11CA14 6
awoken with all these eyeballs staring at me." Id. Appellant explained that she does
not use the "F word with the E-R. That's not a word. I said, 'F'ing idiot.' " T. at 70. She
wholeheartedly denied calling Deputy Spohn an 'F'ing E-R' but "I very well might indeed
quite possibly, 99.9 percent possible, that I called him an F'ing idiot. The word with the
E-R, never. Wrong word." Id.{¶18} Ohio consistently cautions that law enforcement officers must have a
thicker skin than the public as a whole. However, in the facts set forth sub judice,
appellant's offensive language was made to three EMS personnel and the gathering
bystanders. We conclude appellant's words were offensive not only to the EMS
personnel, but created an annoyance that caused a crowd to gather. We conclude
there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find appellant guilty of disorderly
conduct.
{¶19} The sole assignment of error is denied.
Coshocton County, Case No. 11CA14 7
{¶20} The judgment of the Municipal Court of Coshocton County, Ohio is hereby
affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Edwards, J. concur.
s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________
s/ W. Scott Gwin ______________
s/ Julie A. Edwards______________
JUDGES
SGF/sg 427
[Cite as State v. Beamer, 2012-Ohio-2222.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
DEBBIE BEAMER :
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 11CA14
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Municipal Court of Coshocton County, Ohio is affirmed. Costs to
appellant.
s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________
s/ W. Scott Gwin ______________
s/ Julie A. Edwards______________
JUDGES