DocketNumber: No. 14-07-45.
Citation Numbers: 2008 Ohio 1485
Judges: WILLAMOWSKI, J.
Filed Date: 3/31/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 2} On September 5, 2006, Alexander was indicted on one count of burglary, a violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} On May 7, 2007, Alexander filed a motion for judicial release, which the trial court granted on May 25, 2007. Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 4} On September 14, 2007, Alexander's probation officer filed a "notice of alleged probation violation" and sought revocation of Alexander's judicial release The notice indicated that Alexander had violated Rule 1 of the Adult Parole Authority Conditions of Supervision, which stated:
I will obey federal, state and local laws and ordinances, including Chapter 2923. [sic] of the Revised Code relating to conduct involving firearms and other deadly weapons, and all orders, rules and regulations of the County Common Pleas Court of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. I agree to conduct myself as a responsible law abiding citizen[.]
The notice stated that "[o]n or about 9-6-07, you did physically assault Abigail Hurban." The facts surrounding the alleged assault are in dispute. The state contends that Hurban "verbally assaulted" Alexander; Alexander responded by slapping Hurban in the face; and the women began a shoving match. Alexander asserts that she acted in self-defense. She claims that Hurban "verbally assaulted" her, "doubled up her fist and drew back and when she did, I smacked her in the face." *Page 4
{¶ 5} The trial court held a judicial release revocation hearing on October 15, 2007 and found that Alexander had violated the terms of her community control sanctions by assaulting Hurban. The court ordered Alexander to serve the remainder of her original four-year sentence. Alexander appeals the judgment of the trial court and asserts one assignment of error for our review.
The State of Ohio failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant violated herprobation [sic]; therefore, the trial court's decision to revoke Appellant's probation was improper and/or against the manifest weight of the evidence and thus deprived Appellant of due process of law as guaranteed by theFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and comparable provisions of the Ohio Constitution.
{¶ 6} In her appellate brief, Alexander takes issue with the testimony of her probation officer, Dave Siebeneck. Alexander contends that Siebeneck told the court that the police report included a statement that Alexander had punched Hurban in the stomach. However, the police report was not marked as an exhibit at the hearing, let alone admitted into evidence. Alexander argues that the trial court improperly relied on Siebeneck's testimony, in which he stated that Alexander did not deny punching Hurban in the stomach. Alexander contends that Siebeneck's statements were prejudicial.
{¶ 7} As this Court has previously noted, "the rules dealing with a violation of an original sentence of community control (R.C.
{¶ 8} Community control revocation hearings are not criminal proceedings; therefore, the state is not required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Ryan, 3rd Dist. No. 14-06-55,
{¶ 9} At the hearing, Dave Siebeneck, Alexander's probation officer, was the only witness to testify on behalf of the state. Siebeneck testified that *Page 7
Alexander made a statement to him about the alleged violation. In her statement to him, Alexander indicated that Hurban had called her a bitch, so she slapped Hurban in the face. (Dec. 21, 2007, Hearing Tr., at 6). The women then became involved in a shoving match. Id. Siebeneck also stated that Alexander admitted hitting Hurban, but did not deny punching her in the stomach as indicated in the police report. Id. On cross-examination, Siebeneck stated that Alexander had a pending trial date in municipal court as a result of the altercation with Hurban. Id. at 6-7. Siebeneck testified that Alexander did not tell him Hurban was "coming at her," but that she responded merely to a "verbal assault." Id. at 7.
{¶ 10} Alexander was the only witness to testify for the defense. She testified that Hurban came into the break room at their place of employment and called Alexander a bitch. Id. at 9. Alexander stated that Hurban continued her "tirade" then "doubled up her fist and drew back and when she did, I smacked her in the face." Id.. Alexander testified that she hit Hurban because she believed Hurban was going to hit her. Id. Alexander stated that they began shoving each other until their boss broke them apart. Id. On cross-examination, Alexander denied punching Hurban in the stomach, and she admitted that she had not been hit when she "smacked" Hurban in the face. Id. at 9-10.
{¶ 11} Community control revocation hearings are not subject to the rules of evidence, and therefore, the use of hearsay is permissible. SeeRyan, at ¶ 9, *Page 8
citing Evid.R. 101(C)(3). "Nevertheless, the admission of hearsay evidence at a community control revocation hearing can compromise the probationer's due process right to confront adverse witnesses." Id., citing Columbus v. Bickel (1991),
{¶ 12} The evidence in this case is undisputed that Alexander hit Hurban first. The only disputed issue was whether Alexander was acting in self-defense. In non-deadly force cases, the affirmative defense of self-defense is inapplicable where the defendant responded to a mere verbal threat. See generally State v. Darden, 6th Dist. No. E-01-047, 2002-Ohio-6184, at ¶ 50-57. Siebeneck's testimony was based on Alexander's statement to him, which is not inadmissible hearsay evidence. Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(a). Siebeneck's testimony showed that Alexander responded to a mere "verbal assault" by striking the victim. The only other evidence was Alexander's testimony, in which she implied that she acted in *Page 9 self-defense when Hurban threatened her with a closed fist. As noted above, the trial court was in the better position to assess witness credibility, and it apparently believed that Alexander did not act in self-defense when responding to Hurban. There is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding of a community control violation based on Alexander's assault of Hurban.
{¶ 13} Contrary to Alexander's assertion, any error in allowing Siebeneck to testify about a police report is non-prejudicial in this instance. In making our decision above, we had no reason to rely on Siebeneck's statement about the police report. A community control violation was proved based on Alexander's initial reaction to the situation, which was a "smack" to Hurban's face. Any physical contact that occurred after the initial "smack," whether it was a punch to the stomach or the shoving match between the women, does not nullify or override the initial assault by Alexander. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Alexander's judicial release and imposed the remainder of her original prison term. The sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ l4} The judgment of the Union County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
*Page 1PRESTON and ROGERS, J.J. concur.
State v. Webb , 2021 Ohio 2637 ( 2021 )
State v. Phipps , 2021 Ohio 258 ( 2021 )
State v. Wiggins , 2022 Ohio 2718 ( 2022 )
State v. Dunlap , 2013 Ohio 5083 ( 2013 )
State v. Westrick , 196 Ohio App. 3d 141 ( 2011 )
State v. Johnson , 2015 Ohio 4802 ( 2015 )
State v. Patierno, 4-08-08 (2-2-2009) , 2009 Ohio 410 ( 2009 )
State v. Barefield , 2023 Ohio 115 ( 2023 )
State v. Davis , 2021 Ohio 3790 ( 2021 )
State v. Owens , 2020 Ohio 5573 ( 2020 )
State v. Arnold , 2019 Ohio 254 ( 2019 )
State v. Bell , 2022 Ohio 3876 ( 2022 )