State v. Stevens

• Decision Date: 30 September 2022
• Docket Number: L-21-1182
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 3508
• Parties: State of Ohio/City of Sylvania Appellee v. Ryan Stevens Appellant
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2022-Ohio-3508

State of Ohio/City of Sylvania Appellee v. Ryan Stevens Appellant

No. L-21-1182

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas

September 30, 2022

Trial Court No. CRB2100621

Daniel C. Arnold, City of Sylvania Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Nathan VanDenBerghe, for appellant.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

MAYLE J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Ryan Stevens, appeals the September 29, 2021 judgment of the Sylvania Municipal Court sentencing him for a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. Background and Facts

{¶ 2} On April 8, 2021, following a report from the victim in this case, S.S., deputy Stephanie Meinke of the Lucas County Sheriff's Office filed a complaint charging Stevens with one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C), a fourth-degree misdemeanor. The complaint alleged that Stevens "did knowingly cause a family or household member to believe that imminent harm would occur by stating he was going to smash [S.S.'s] face in. * * * This did occur at [S.S.'s] home * * *."

{¶ 3} Stevens's case was tried to the court on May 12, 2021. Appellee, the city of Sylvania, presented the testimony of S.S. and Meinke. Stevens also called Meinke as his witness. The following facts were elicited at trial.

{¶ 4} S.S. testified that she and Stevens were married but had been separated since mid-February of 2021 and were in the process of divorcing.

{¶ 5} The incident that was the basis of the charge against Stevens happened on March 24, 2021. That day, S.S met Stevens at a Wal-Mart store to purchase groceries for him, which she was required to do as part of the divorce proceedings. According to S.S.,

as soon as I walked in he started making comments, um, cursing at me in public * * *. Walking out to the car, um, he's still, I don't-running his mouth for lack of better terms. * * * [T]hat's when he told me that he was going to smash my face in. And I remember I turned around and I was, I was shocked to be honest at what was said but I think I was more hurt by it, I am the mother of his child. Um, and he said no, no, no, you'll just call the cops so I'll tell you it'll be somebody that you don't know that I know so it will be the element of surprise. That scared me * * *.

S.S. said the incident at Wal-Mart ended when she got into her car to leave.

{¶ 6} However, S.S. was also required to purchase gasoline for Stevens as part of the divorce proceedings, so she followed him to a gas station when they finished at Wal-Mart. S.S. called her cousin, who was on the phone with S.S. when Stevens made the threat and who lived nearby, and asked her cousin to meet her at the gas station because she "d[id]n't want to do this by [her]self." The cousin called S.S.'s father, who also went to the gas station. S.S. was able to pay for the gas and leave without incident.

{¶ 7} After March 24, S.S. said that issues with Stevens were "just constant, the harassment got worse." These contacts with Stevens were "all over the phone or text messages, * * *" and "seemed to get more harmful for his own life." Stevens was sending S.S. messages "every 35 minutes or hour * * * that would take four minutes to read * * *." At one point, while S.S. was out at a movie with a friend, she received text messages from Stevens telling her that he knew where she was and who she was with. These messages made her "fearful" and "very scared." Although Stevens did not make any specific threats of harm to S.S. other than the March 24 threat to have someone "smash [her] face in[,]" she still believed that she was at risk of harm from Stevens.

{¶ 8} On April 7, S.S. received "another crazy long" text message from Stevens that was "all over the places [sic]," which is what prompted her to call the police.

{¶ 9} On cross-examination, S.S. said that she was "scared," "in disbelief," and "shocked" when Stevens made the comment about smashing her face in. Even after Stevens had threatened her, S.S. went with him to purchase gas because "[t]hat's [sic] was the agreement we came to [and] I don't go back on my word."

{¶ 10} When S.S. made her report on April 7, S.S. said that she told Meinke about the incident at Wal-Mart and about the threatening text messages. She did not show Meinke the messages, however, because Meinke did not ask to see them. S.S. could not recall the last time that Stevens made a threatening phone call to her, but said that it was before April 7.

{¶ 11} S.S. said that she did not specifically tell Meinke that Stevens threatened her at Wal-Mart. She denied telling Meinke that Stevens made the threat to smash her face in during a phone call. She claimed that she reported that Stevens made the threat "at a grocery store [and] it was verbal"-by which she meant that Stevens made the threat while they were communicating face-to-face.

{¶ 12} After March 24, S.S. said that she had two in-person interactions with Stevens: one when he dropped off an Easter gift for their child and one when they transferred ownership of a vehicle. S.S. was scared to meet with Stevens both times, but she had other people with her to observe Stevens's behavior.

{¶ 13} When Stevens's attorney asked if S.S. had ever considered blocking Stevens's phone number, she responded, "I didn't think that was a very good thing since we were going through divorce proceedings and I didn't want him to assume or tell the courts that I was keeping him from contacting his child."

{¶ 14} Regarding S.S.'s decision to report Stevens's threat to the police, S.S. said that her parents had encouraged her to report him in the past, but she had not. She denied making the April 7 report because of advice from her divorce attorney. She also denied that they had some type of custody hearing the week after S.S. made the report; she said that they were scheduled for a Zoom call with a court counselor regarding "what was in the best interest of our child as far as visitation" on April 20, but Stevens did not attend.

{¶ 15} S.S. admitted that she called the police on April 3 to do a wellness check on Stevens because she believed, based on the content of the text messages he was sending her, that he was suicidal. She did not report to officers at that time that Stevens had threatened her. S.S. did not know what happened as a result of the wellness check.

{¶ 16} S.S.'s goal in reporting Stevens's behavior from March 24 was to get "the threats and the bothersome [sic] and the stalking and all of that to just stop." She admitted that Stevens had not made any threats of physical harm to her after March 24, but said that dealing with the constant text messages from Stevens-including his threats of self-harm and him apparently tracking her location-was "a mental torture."

{¶ 17} Next, the city called Meinke to testify. On April 7, 2021, Meinke was on duty when she was called to S.S. 's house. When she arrived, she and S.S. talked while standing in the driveway, and after hearing S.S.'s version of events, Meinke decided to file a domestic violence charge against Stevens. S.S. gave Meinke the address where she believed Stevens was staying, and Meinke and her partner apprehended him without incident.

{¶ 18} On cross-examination, Meinke said that S.S. never mentioned Wal-Mart when she reported the alleged threats from Stevens. S.S. also said that she had text messages from Stevens, but Meinke did not recall S.S. saying that Stevens made the threat over the phone. Meinke did not look at the text messages that S.S. claimed to have. Stevens's attorney also had Meinke review the witness statement that S.S. wrote at the time she reported the threat, and Meinke testified that the statement did not mention either an in-person threat or Wal-Mart.

{¶ 19} Following Meinke's testimony, the state rested. Stevens moved to dismiss the charge under Crim.R. 29 on the basis that the city "has not met their burden and they've not proven every element of the charge." The city responded that S.S. testified that she and Stevens "are married, that they're currently going through a divorce, that [Stevens] threatened to smash her face in which caused her to be in fear of him and she's been living in the life of fear, * * * she's ID'd [sic] * * *" Stevens, and the threats happened within the trial court's jurisdiction. The court denied Stevens's motion because "reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of the crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt * * *."

{¶ 20} For his case, Stevens recalled Meinke for the sole purpose of authenticating copies of body camera footage and S.S.'s 911 call. After the court admitted the exhibits, Stevens rested.

{¶ 21} On the recording of the 911 call, S.S. reported that, since filing divorce papers, Stevens had been sending her "very odd" text messages saying that he "want[ed] to harm himself, want[ed] to harm * * *" S.S., had been driving past her house, and "it seems like he knows where [S.S. is] at at all times." She said that this was "driving [her] insane" and was "taking a toll on [her] physically and mentally * * *[,]" and she was trying to get it to stop. S.S. said that her attorney told her to call the police to see if they would call Stevens to tell him to stop contacting her. If the police would not call him, S.S. wanted to pursue some type of legal action against Stevens. The most recent contact from Stevens was a text at 12:30 that morning. S.S. did not specifically mention the March 24 threat at Wal-Mart or say that Stevens had made any threats to her in person.

{¶ 22} The videos that the court admitted were from the body cameras that Meinke and her partner wore on April 7 2021. The first video was footage from Meinke's body camera during her...