State v. Goins
| Decision Date | 28 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1-21-29 |
| Citation | 187 N.E.3d 42 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melvin GOINS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
F. Stephen Chamberlain, Lima, for Appellant.
David Osborne, Jr., for Appellee.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Melvin Goins ("Goins"), appeals the June 18, 2021 judgment entry of sentence of the Lima Municipal Court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} This case stems from the events preceding the death of Brian Brinkman ("Brian"), a resident of a group home for disabled adults, which was operated by Champaign Residential Services, Inc. ("CRSI"). Goins, an employee of CRSI, worked in the group home at which Brian was a resident, and was responsible for caring for the residents of the group home. (June 18, 2021 Tr., Vol. II, at 300-301).
{¶3} On January 19, 2019, when another employee of CRSI, Julie Roberts ("Roberts"), was working at the group home, Brian fell out of his bed. (June 17, 2021 Tr., Vol. I, at 48, 143); (June 18, 2021 Tr., Vol. II, at 258, 308-309). Roberts failed to report Brian's fall as she was required to do. (Id. at 143); (Id. at 259). Instead, she informed Goins of Brian's fall after he reported for work later that evening. (June 17, 2021 Tr., Vol. I, at 49, 144-145). Further, Goins did not report Brian's fall (or that Brian was acting differently) until January 21, 2021 when Goins reported to his supervisor that Brian needed medical attention because it was unusual for him to require assistance to ambulate from his room to the restroom. (June 17, 2021 Tr., Vol. I, at 49-50, 71); (June 18, 2021 Tr., Vol. II, at 310-312, 314, 316-321). (See also Joint Ex. 16-A). After Brian's fall was reported, he was transported to the emergency room by ambulance "and that was the day that the incident report was made" by Goins. (June 17, 2021 Tr., Vol. I, at 49-50); (Joint Ex. 10A).
{¶4} Brian was diagnosed with a hip fracture and discharged from the hospital into his brother's, Michael Brinkman ("Michael"), care with aftercare instructions, which included pain-medication prescriptions and a follow-up appointment with the Orthopedic Institute of Ohio ("OIO") for the following day. (June 17, 2021 Tr., Vol. I, at 45-46, 113); (June 18, 2021 Tr., Vol. II, at 195); (Joint Ex. 4A). After Brian was discharged from the hospital, Michael returned Brian to the group home along with his medical book in which he put Brian's aftercare instructions and pain-medication prescriptions. (June 18, 2021 Tr., Vol. II, at 196-197, 324). Goins assisted Brian into the residence but failed to look inside Brian's medical book for the aftercare instructions or pain-medication prescriptions. (Id. at 326-327). In other words, Goins did not submit an incident report when Brian returned from the hospital reflecting Brian's aftercare instructions as he was required to do. (June 17, 2021 Tr., Vol. I, at 47-48, 125-126); (June 18, 2021 Tr., Vol. II, at 229-230, 263, 328). As a result, Brian missed his follow-up appointment with OIO and his pain-medication prescriptions went unfilled until January 23, 2019 when another staff member found the aftercare instructions and pain-medication prescriptions in Brian's medical book. (June 17, 2021 Tr., Vol. I, at 47-48, 51); (Joint Ex. 5A).
{¶5} As soon as the unfilled pain-medication prescriptions were discovered on January 23, 2019, Goins went to the pharmacy to fill the prescriptions and administer the medications to Brian. Goins did not report (to his supervisor or CRSI) Brian's new medication or that Brian missed his follow-up appointment with OIO until the next day, January 24, 2019, when Brian refused to get out of bed. (June 17, 2021 Tr., Vol. I, at 51); (June 18, 2021 Tr., Vol. II, at 235, 338-343). When that report was made, Amanda Martinez ("Martinez") a "field associate nurse" with CRSI arrived at the group home to assess Brian. (June 17, 2021 Tr., Vol. I, at 52). Martinez determined that Brian needed to be transported to the hospital by ambulance. (Id. ). Brian was admitted to the hospital and later died on January 27, 2019. (Id. at 104).
{¶6} On October 15, 2020, Goins was charged by complaint for a gross patient neglect in violation of R.C. 2903.34(A)(2), a first-degree misdemeanor, failing to provide for a functionally impaired person in violation of R.C. 2903.16(B), a second-degree misdemeanor, and patient neglect in violation of R.C. 2903.34(A)(3), second-degree misdemeanor. (Doc. No. 2). On October 20, 2020, Goins appeared and entered pleas of not guilty. (Doc. Nos. 4, 5).
{¶7} On March 9, 2021, Goins filed a motion to dismiss the failing-to-provide-for-a-functionally-impaired-person charge, which was granted by the trial court on April 7, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 22, 29, 30).
{¶8} The case proceeded to a jury trial on June 17-18, 2021 on the remaining charges. On June 18, 2021, the jury found Goins guilty of patient neglect, but not guilty of gross patient neglect. (Doc. Nos. 58, 59, 60, 61). That same day, the trial court sentenced Goins to 90 days in jail, with 60 days suspended conditioned on his compliance with the conditions his probation. (Doc. No. 61). In lieu of serving his 30-day jail sentence, the trial court ordered that Goins "may serve 30 days on the E.M.H.A. program * * *." (Emphasis sic.) (Id. ).
{¶9} Goins filed his notice of appeal on July 14, 2021. (Doc. No. 66). He raises two assignments of error for our review.
The Trial Court Erred in Denying Defendant/Appellant's Motion for Acquittal and the Evidence was Insufficient to Support the Jury's Conviction of Defendant/Appellant for the Crime of Patient Neglect and the Jury's Verdict Finding Defendant/Appellant Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt of the Crime of Patient Neglect is Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence.
{¶10} In his first assignment of error, Goins argues that his patient-neglect conviction is based on insufficient evidence and is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, Goins argues that the State did not present any "medical testimony * * * that provided a direct nexus between [his] acts or omissions and [Brian's] serious physical harm." (Appellant's Brief at 13). Likewise, Goins contends that the weight of the evidence does not support he "aggravated or exacerbated" Brian's harm. (Id. at 15).
{¶11} Manifest "weight of the evidence and sufficiency of the evidence are clearly different legal concepts." State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 389, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). Thus, we address each legal concept individually.
{¶12} "An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds , State v. Smith , 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997). Accordingly, "[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. "In deciding if the evidence was sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor assess the credibility of witnesses, as both are functions reserved for the trier of fact." State v. Jones , 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120570 and C-120571, 2013-Ohio-4775, 2013 WL 5864591, ¶ 33, citing State v. Williams , 197 Ohio App.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-6267, 968 N.E.2d 27, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.). See also State v. Berry , 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-12-03, 2013-Ohio-2380, 2013 WL 2638704, ¶ 19 (), citing Thompkins at 386, 678 N.E.2d 541.
{¶13} On the other hand, in determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must examine the entire record, " ‘weigh[ ] the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider[ ] the credibility of witnesses and determine[ ] whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’ " Thompkins at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin , 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). A reviewing court must, however, allow the trier of fact appropriate discretion on matters relating to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. State v. DeHass , 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). When applying the manifest-weight standard, "[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court's judgment." State v. Haller , 3d Dist., 2012-Ohio-5233, 982 N.E.2d 111, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Hunter , 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119.
{¶14} We begin by addressing Goins's sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument as it relates to his patient-neglect conviction. Goins was convicted of patient neglect in violation of R.C. 2903.34(A)(3), which provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person who owns, operates, or administers, or who is an agent or employee of, a care facility shall" "[c]ommit neglect against a resident or patient of the facility." Goins does not dispute that he was an employee of a care facility.
{¶15} For purposes of the statute, " ‘[n]eglect’ means recklessly failing to provide a person with any treatment, care, goods, or service that is necessary to maintain the health or safety of the person when the failure results in serious physical harm to the person." R.C. 2903.33(C)(2). Reckless-mental culpability is defined under R.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial