State v. King

• Decision Date: 03 December 2021
• Docket Number: 2021-CA-18
• Citation: 2021 Ohio 4228
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERT KING Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2021-Ohio-4228

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROBERT KING Defendant-Appellant

No. 2021-CA-18

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Champaign

December 3, 2021

Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court Trial Court Case No. 21-CRB-25

MARK M. FEINSTEIN, Atty. Reg. No. 0065183, Prosecuting Attorney, Champaign County Municipal Court, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

BYRON K. SHAW, Atty. Reg. No. 0073124 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

OPINION

DONOVAN, J.

1

{¶ 1} Robert King appeals from his conviction in the Champaign County Municipal Court, following a bench trial, on one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2929.25, a misdemeanor of the first degree. We affirm the judgment of the municipal court.

{¶ 2} King was charged by way of complaint on January 8, 2021. He filed a motion to dismiss on March 1, 2021, which the court did not address. A bench trial commenced on March 31, 2021.

{¶ 3} At trial, the complaining witness, J.C., testified that she and King had two children together and had been in a relationship "off and on" for 20 years. She further testified that, on Friday, January 8, 2021, King was "messing around in his pockets" and she "heard" the sound of pills in his pocket. King also wanted J.C. to leave their son with King and his brother, who was also present. J.C. had not wanted to leave her "baby boy" with King and his brother because of "the pill incident." J.C. asserted that King had told her in the past that he "gets different surgeries to get prescription medication"; defense counsel objected to this testimony, arguing that the presence of the pills may or may not be relevant, but that J.C.'s testimony about how King got them was irrelevant and speculative. The court overruled the objection.

{¶ 4} J.C. further testified that she had looked in the trash can in the kitchen and seen "some papers," that she knew King did not usually "throw papers away," and that she stated to him: "you went and got your prescriptions today." According to J.C, King responded affirmatively. J.C. then "went to go through" the papers, saw "another one," and started to grab it. At that point, King had come around the kitchen table and "gripped

2

[J.C.] up by [her] throat," which she also described as grabbing her by the neck. King then let J.C. go, and she left with her kids. According to J.C., King's actions left marks on her neck; she spoke to law enforcement officers after the incident, and the officers took pictures of the marks.

{¶ 5} J.C. testified that, while she was speaking with law enforcement officers after this incident, King telephoned her, and his call was recorded. The recording was played for the court. With respect to her injury, J.C. testified that King "scratched" the left side of her neck and "it kept burning."

{¶ 6} Todd Pratt, the supervisor for the Urbana Police Division, testified that he investigated J.C.'s complaint about the incident on January 8. He stated that J.C.'s trial testimony had been consistent with her version of events on the evening of the incident. Pratt stated that he had recorded King's call to J.C. and had been present when three photos were taken of J.C.'s throat. Pratt identified Exhibits A, B, and C as the pictures of J.C.'s neck. Pratt testified that Exhibit A included a ruler to establish the size of the injury, and Exhibit B showed the left side of J.C.'s neck, which had a scratch mark. Pratt described Exhibit C as depicting the right side of J.C.'s neck, where she had a birthmark, and Pratt testified that he "just [saw] the birthmark" on that picture.

{¶ 7} On cross-examination, Pratt testified that King had stated that he grabbed J.C. by her shirt, not her throat; King "did tell that story that she was digging in the trash and he didn't like it; and he had grabbed her by the shirt to get her out the door[.]" Pratt acknowledged that King wore a neck brace. The following exchange occurred during Pratt's cross-examination:

Q. Do you know generally * * * why he's wearing that [neck brace]

3

A. We had discussion about that too, because * * * instead of taking him to jail that evening, which is normal protocol, he said that he had surgery and something about they went in and through his throat or through his neck or something - - he had some neck surgery, and some vertebrae I think are so bad so yeah, he explained why he was medically having an issue.

Q. * * * And this medical issue, the results of the surgery were so serious, I guess, that the jail wouldn't even take him, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you investigate whether it would even be possible for him to grab her by the neck?

A. He was supposed to be wearing a back brace, he said, but he wasn't wearing it that day so I don't know about his movements or what he's able or not to do. I didn't get into the medical aspect of his - - I mean, he was able to walk around and everything and - -

Q. Okay.

A. - - (unintelligible) in front of me, but we didn't go any further than that.

{¶ 8} Pratt testified that he had had prior interactions with King and J.C. and had charged them with disorderly conduct in 2016. Regarding the instant offense, Pratt was not the initial responding officer; he arrived 15-20 minutes later at J.C.'s parents' home, then proceeded to King's residence. When asked if he found any evidence of drug trafficking there, Pratt responded that that was "not what was going on," that King had "an explanation of what was going on with the pills, and they were at his mother's."

4

{¶ 9} On redirect examination, Pratt testified that nothing he witnessed in King's movements on the night of the incident suggested to him that King would have been unable to injure J.C. in the manner described by her.

{¶ 10} At the conclusion of the evidence, King moved for an acquittal; the court overruled the motion. The defense did not call any witnesses. After closing arguments, the trial...