State v. Ashcraft
| Docket Number | 2021-CA-0024 |
| Decision Date | 12 July 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 Ohio 2378 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. RICHARD ASHCRAFT Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
For Plaintiff-Appellee DAVID YOST Ohio Attorney General BY ANDREA K. BOYD Special Prosecuting Attorney
Hon W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A Delaney, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Richard Ashcraft ["Ashcraft"] appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury trial in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶2} On December 7, 2020, the Richland County Grand Jury indicted Ashcraft on a two-count indictment for assault on a police officer as a felony of the fourth degree in violation of R.C. 2903.13(C)(5) and aggravated possession of drugs as a felony of the fifth degree in violation of R.C. 2925.11(C)(1)(A) as a result of an incident that occurred while Ashcraft was attending the Volunteers of America ["VOA"] program in Mansfield, Ohio.
{¶3} On October 31, 2020, Mansfield Police Department Officers Eric Schaaf and Charles Hamilton were dispatched to the VOA rehabilitation facility for two potential overdoses.
{¶4} Ashcraft was sitting on the floor in the corner when the officers and firemen first approached him; he appeared to be disoriented, sluggish, and slow to respond. In his hand was a cigarette rolled in Bible paper. 2T. at 400-401. Ashcraft did not want to go to the hospital; he reiterated that he was fine and that he did not need help, but emergency personnel convinced him to get onto the gurney to be transported to the hospital. However, once he was placed on the gurney, Ashcraft began flailing and kicking his arms and legs. Ashcraft was attempting to catch onto the doors to prevent the gurney from passing. Eventually, paramedics used the three seatbelt-like straps to restrain Ashcraft on the gurney. Ashcraft then pulled his knees up toward his chest, removed his feet from the restraints and began kicking out at the personnel. 2T. At 359. Ashcraft was placed in handcuffs by the officers. Due to his continued flailing and kicking, it was difficult for the gurney to pass through the narrow doorways. Officers Schaaf and Hamilton, along with two firemen, picked up Ashcraft and carried him to the parking lot. Due to Ashcraft's combativeness and for safety reasons, officers decided to transport Ashcraft by police cruiser instead of ambulance.
{¶5} Ashcraft did not want to get into the cruiser; he kept trying to push and get away from the officers and was yelling and screaming. While the first responders were attempting to get Ashcraft into the cruiser, he began kicking again, which caused him to fall backward out of the vehicle. Ashcraft's sweat pants fell down a bit during the fall. After picking Ashcraft up off the ground and while attempting to get him back into the cruiser, Ashcraft kicked Officer Hamilton in the groin, causing him to double over in pain and place his hands on his knees. After placing Ashcraft in the cruiser and closing the door, Officer Schaaf walked around the back of the cruiser and saw on the side near the rear passenger door, a baggie. 2T. at 290. The baggie was later tested and found to contain 0.12 grams of methamphetamine. 2T. at 341.
{¶6} The events were captured on the police cruiser's video camera. State's Exhibit 1. 2T. at 283.
{¶7} Ashcraft testified in his own defense. He had a vague and fragmented recollection of the events that transpired. Ashcraft testified that he was trying to sit up in the police cruiser, not to kick Officer Hamilton. According to Ashcraft, he did not intend to kick Officer Hamilton, nor did he intend to cause him any physical harm. Ashcraft also denied having methamphetamine on his person on that date or at any time while at the VOA.
{¶8} Following deliberations, the jury convicted Ashcraft of Assault and Aggravated Possession of Drugs. A sentencing hearing was held on March 26, 2021. On the offense of Assault, the trial court sentenced Ashcraft to eighteen months in prison. On the offense of Aggravated Possession of Drugs, the trial court sentenced Ashcraft to six months in prison. Finally, the trial court imposed 900 days as a post-release control sanction. Those sentences and sanction were ordered to be served consecutively.
{¶9} Ashcraft appealed. On November 2, 2021, finding that no transcript had been filed, this Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. On February 23, 2022, Ashcraft filed a delayed motion to re-open his appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B). This Court granted Ashcraft's motion by Judgement Entry filed March 24, 2022.
{¶10} Ashcraft raises two Assignments of Error, {¶11} "I. APPELLANTS CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶12}
{¶13} In his First Assignment of Error, Ashcraft admits that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of guilty with respect to Count One of the Indictment; however, Ashcraft argues the greater weight of the evidence at trial was that he inadvertently or accidentally kicked Officer Hamilton, as opposed to knowingly doing so. Therefore, Ashcraft contends that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶14} As to the weight of the evidence, the issue is whether the jury created a manifest miscarriage of justice in resolving conflicting evidence, even though the evidence of guilt was legally sufficient. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386-387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated by State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 684 N.E.2d 668, 1997-Ohio-355; State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 67, 752 N.E.2d 904 (2001).
{¶15} Weight of the evidence addresses the evidence's effect of inducing belief. State v. Thompkins, supra, 78 Ohio St.3d at 386-387, 678 N.E.2d 541(1997), State v Williams, 99 Ohio St.3d 493, 2003-Ohio-4396, 794 N.E.2d 27, ¶83. When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a "thirteenth juror" and disagrees with the fact finder's resolution of the conflicting testimony. Thompkins at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, citing Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652(1982) (quotation marks omitted); State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d 1244, ¶25, citing Thompkins.
{¶16} Once the reviewing court finishes its examination, an appellate court may not merely substitute its view for that of the jury, but must find that "'the jury 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. Thompkins, supra, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717, 720-721 (1st Dist. 1983). The Ohio Supreme Court has emphasized: "'[I]n determining whether the judgment below is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, every reasonable intendment and every reasonable presumption must be made in favor of the judgment and the finding of facts. * * *.'" Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 334, 972 N.E.2d 517, 2012-Ohio-2179, quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984), fn. 3, quoting 5 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review, Section 603, at 191-192 (1978).
State v. Gibson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220283, 2023-Ohio-1640, ¶ 8.
{¶18} Further, to reverse a jury verdict as being against the manifest weight of the evidence, a unanimous concurrence of all three judges on the court of appeals panel reviewing the case is required pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(B)(3) of the Ohio Constitution. Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko, 115 Ohio St.3d 291, 2007-Ohio-4918, ¶ 2-4, citing Thompkins at paragraph four of the syllabus.
Issue for Appellate Review: Whether the jury clearly lost their way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.
{¶19} R.C. 2903.13, Assault, provides, "(A) No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another's unborn."
{¶20} R.C. 2901.01 (A)(3) provides, ""Physical harm to persons" means any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration."
{¶21} ...
To continue reading
Request your trial