State v. Hanson

• Citation: 143 N.E.3d 1178,2019 Ohio 3688
• Decision Date: 13 September 2019
• Docket Number: No. 28057,28057
• Parties: STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John HANSON, III, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)

143 N.E.3d 1178

2019 Ohio 3688

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.John HANSON, III, Defendant-Appellant

No. 28057

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County.

Rendered September 13, 2019

CHRISTINE L. BURK, Atty. Reg. No. 0050559, 10 N. First Street, Miamisburg, Ohio 45342, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.

HILARY LERMAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0029975, 249 Wyoming Street, Dayton, Ohio 45409, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

HALL, J.,

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, John Hanson, III, appeals from his conviction in the Miamisburg Municipal Court after he pled no contest to two counts of making a false allegation of peace officer misconduct in violation of R.C. 2921.15(B). In support of his appeal, Hanson contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that R.C. 2921.15 is unconstitutional. For the reasons outlined below, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant filed a false "complaint" against a peace officer by making false verbal accusations and a written witness statement to a police supervisor alleging the arresting officers raped him. We further conclude the evidence was sufficient to establish that Hanson's accusation was made "knowingly." Finally, Hanson waived his challenge to the constitutionality of R.C. 2921.15 by failing to raise the issue in the trial court. Consequently, we affirm the convictions.

Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 2} On October 27, 2017, Officers Nick Bell and Brandon Mundy of the Miamisburg Police Department arrested Hanson on misdemeanor charges of failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer and disorderly conduct. Following Hanson's arrest, the officers transported Hanson to the Montgomery County Jail. Hanson was released from jail the next day and was thereafter charged in the Miamisburg Municipal Court with the above-named offenses. The charges were filed under Case Nos. 2017-CRB-1888(A) and (B).

{¶ 3} Upon being released from jail, Hanson called the Miamisburg Police Department and reported that Officers Bell and Mundy had beat him and shoved something up his rectum during the course of his arrest. Sergeant Josiah Keefer responded to Hanson's call and briefly spoke to Hanson about his accusations against the officers. During the call, Keefer asked Hanson to meet with him at the police station to discuss the matter further and to get a written statement. Hanson agreed and thereafter went to the police station to speak with Sergeant Keefer.

{¶ 4} When Hanson arrived at the police station, Keefer obtained Hanson's identification information and questioned him about the alleged assault by Officers Bell and Mundy. Keefer audio-recorded his conversation with Hanson and had Hanson complete a written "Witness Statement" form. On the form, Hanson wrote that the arresting officers had "tackled [him] from behind" and assaulted him by "hitting" him, "smashing [his] face into the ground [,] sticking something in [his] rectum causing [him] to bleed for the last two days." State's Exhibit No. 20.

{¶ 5} During their meeting, Sergeant Keefer also had Hanson sign a document explaining the offense of making a false allegation of peace officer misconduct. Keefer explained that he wanted Hanson to sign the document in order to confirm that Hanson "understood that it was a crime to file false reports on police officers." State's Exhibit Nos. 22 and 29. During the recorded conversation, Hanson told Keefer that he did not know whether the officer's actions were malicious but nevertheless maintained that one of the officers shoved something up his rectum. Toward the end of their conversation, Keefer told Hanson that he was going to "open an investigation, do a report, get his medical records and take photos." State's Exhibit Nos. 22 and 29. After Keefer took photographs of Hanson, Hanson left the police station, and Keefer forwarded his report to Sergeant Jeffrey Muncy for further investigation.

{¶ 6} In investigating the matter further, Sergeant Muncy reviewed the cruiser camera video footage of Hanson's arrest, Hanson's jail records, the video of Hanson's jail booking, a Dayton medic call log, and medical records obtained from NaphCare. Based on his review, Muncy found that Hanson's accusations against Officers Bell and Mundy were unfounded. Upon learning that Hanson's allegations were false, Sergeant Muncy presented the matter to the prosecutor, who approved charging Hanson with two counts of making a false allegation of peace officer misconduct in violation of R.C. 2921.15(B). In the complaint charging Hanson, it was specifically alleged that Hanson violated R.C. 2921.15(B) by "report[ing] to Sgt. Keefer that Officer Nick Bell [and Officer Brandon Mundy] had physically and/or sexually assaulted him on the night of his arrest on 10/27/17, knowing this did not occur." Complaint (Nov. 1, 2017), Miamisburg M.C. No. 2017-CRB-1925(A)/(B), Docket No. 2.

{¶ 7} In the course of his investigation, Muncy also contacted Hanson by telephone on November 1, 2017. During this call, which was audio-recorded, Muncy advised Hanson that he was calling to follow up on Hanson's complaints. In response, Hanson told Muncy that he had already given his written statement to Sergeant Keefer and that he did not know what else to say. Hanson also told Muncy that he "would just like to forget about the whole thing" and that "he did not know if [the officers] purposely did it to him." State's Exhibit Nos. 22 and 28. Hanson, however, still maintained that the officers beat him and shoved something up his rectum.

{¶ 8} Following this discussion, Muncy told Hanson that in order to close the case, Hanson needed to either sign a statement of non-prosecution or meet with him at the police station to further discuss the allegations. Although Hanson agreed to meet with Muncy, Hanson never appeared at the police station. After Hanson failed to appear, Muncy called Hanson again. During this second call, Hanson advised Muncy that he did not appear because he had learned from the Miamisburg Municipal Court website that there was a warrant for his arrest. To this, Muncy responded that "the warrant was for making false allegations against a police officer, for this incident." State's Exhibit No. 22. There is no dispute that Hanson never met with Muncy, but instead turned himself in to the Miamisburg Municipal Court the next day, on November 2, 2017.

{¶ 9} After turning himself in, Hanson appeared before the trial court and pled not guilty to the two charges of making a false allegation of peace officer misconduct. The matter was thereafter set for a jury trial. However, on the day of trial, Hanson decided to accept a negotiated plea agreement with the State. As part of the plea agreement, Hanson agreed to plead no contest to both of the false allegation charges in exchange for the State dismissing the charges for failure to comply and disorderly conduct in Case Nos. 2017-CRB-1888(A) and (B).

{¶ 10} Following the trial court's acceptance of Hanson's no contest plea, the State submitted 31 exhibits in support of the charges alleging that Hanson had made false allegations of peace officer misconduct. The State's exhibits included the video footage of Hanson's October 27, 2017 arrest and jail booking, photographs of Hanson's alleged injuries, Hanson's handwritten "Witness Statement," the recorded telephone conversations that Hanson had with Sergeants Keefer and Muncy, the police reports generated by Sergeants Keefer and Muncy, the two complaints filed against Hanson in this case, and Miami Valley Hospital records indicating that there was no "acute trauma" to Hanson's rectum. After the trial court noted on the record that it had "extensively" reviewed the 31 exhibits presented by the State, the trial court found there was "more than sufficient evidence to find [Hanson] guilty" of the two charges. Trans. (June 22, 2018), p. 15 and 18.

{¶ 11} After finding Hanson guilty, the trial court proceeded to sentencing. In sentencing Hanson, the trial court imposed 180 days in jail for each offense, to be served concurrently, with 175 days suspended and two days of jail-time credit. In lieu of serving three days in jail, the trial court ordered Hanson to attend and complete a 72-hour alcohol intervention program at the Ohio Intervention Center ("OIC"). The trial court also ordered Hanson to complete a drug and alcohol assessment with Dr. Mary Melton at the OIC and to complete any recommended counseling or treatment. In addition, the trial court imposed two years of reporting probation and ordered Hanson to pay a $230 fine and court costs.

{¶ 12} Hanson now appeals from his conviction, raising three assignments of error for review.

First Assignment of Error

{¶ 13} Under his first assignment of error, Hanson contends that there was insufficient evidence for the trial court to find him guilty of violating R.C. 2921.15(B). Specifically, Hanson contends that the evidence did not establish that he filed a "complaint" against Officers Bell and Mundy as required for a violation of R.C. 2921.15(B).

{¶ 14} "On a plea of no contest to a misdemeanor offense, R.C. 2937.07 provides that a court may find the defendant guilty or not guilty based on ‘the explanation of the circumstances of the offense.’ " (Footnote omitted.) State v. Wieckowski , 2d Dist. Clark No. 2010-CA-111, 2011-Ohio-5567, 2011 WL 5143183, ¶ 4. "Although R.C. 2937.07 does not define the phrase ‘explanation of circumstances,’ it requires evidence sufficient to demonstrate the accused's criminal liability for the offense charged." (Citation omitted.) State v. Osterfeld , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20677, 2005-Ohio-3180, 2005 WL 1490452, ¶ 6. Therefore, the explanation of circumstances "necessarily involves, at a minimum, some positive recitation of facts which, if the court finds them to be true, would permit the court to enter a guilty verdict and a judgment of conviction on the charge to which the accused has offered a plea...