State v. Vickie Lee Chmiel
| Decision Date | 26 September 1997 |
| Docket Number | 97-LW-4652,96-L-173 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICKIE LEE CHMIEL, Defendant-Appellant. CASE |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Criminal Appeal from Painesville Municipal Court Case No. CRB 961397 A, B
HON ROBERT A. NADER, P.J., HON. WILLIAM M. O'NEILL, J., HON EDWARD J. MAHONEY, J., Ret., Ninth Appellant District sitting by assignment.
ATTY EDWARD POWERS, PAINESVILLE CITY PROSECUTOR, 270 East Main Street, Painesville, OH 44077, For Plaintiff-Appellee
R. PAUL LaPLANTE LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER, MARGARET CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER 125 East Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077, For Defendant-Appellant
Appellant, Vickie Lee Chmiel, appeals from her conviction in the Painesville Municipal Court on charges of aggravated menacing and menacing by stalking. The following facts are relevant to this appeal.
On August 28, 1996, appellant telephoned Pathways, a mental health agency located in Mentor, Ohio, and spoke with Sonja Benford, a community support coordinator. Appellant indicated that she needed to talk to someone regarding some thoughts she had been having. Specifically, Ms. Benford claims that appellant told her that she had been "stalking" a neighbor girl and, although she had not acted upon her thoughts, she was worried about what might happen in the future. Appellant did not identify the neighbor girl or give Ms. Benford her own address. Ms. Benford told appellant that she had a duty to notify the police of their conversation.
On August 29, 1996, appellant telephoned the Painesville Police Department and talked to Detective Sergeant David Luhta. Appellant identified herself and asked whether there was a warrant out for her arrest. Detective Sergeant Luhta, who had been informed on the previous day about appellant, replied in the negative and proceeded to draw out of appellant more details. He learned what street she lived on, and that the neighbor girl was approximately three-years old and had blonde hair. He asked her what specifically she would do if the neighbor girl happened to wander onto appellant's porch. He claims that she stated that she would grab the little girl, tear her clothes off, and "stick her fist inside her."
Following the conversation, Detective Sergeant Luhta went to appellant's street with three other policemen. Not knowing appellant's exact address, they began knocking on doors and calling for her. Appellant appeared on her front porch and responded to the officers. Appellant pointed out the mother of the neighbor girl to the officers at which point Detective Sergeant Luhta went to talk to the girl's mother. He told her that appellant had been watching her daughter "and was starting to molest her." He pointed out appellant to the mother and asked if she knew her. The mother did not know appellant and had never talked to her, although she had seen appellant on appellant's own porch two to three times per week.
While Detective Sergeant Luhta was talking to the girl's mother, Officer Troy Hager continued to talk to appellant. Officer Hager told appellant that she had two choices; either voluntarily go to the hospital, or be arrested and be taken to jail. Appellant chose to go to the hospital because she admitted that she needed help. Appellant was taken to Lake East Hospital and subsequently transferred to the Cleveland Psychiatric Institute ("C.P.I."). Six days later, on September 4, 1996, appellant was released from C.P.I. and immediately arrested.
Appellant was charged with aggravated menacing, in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A), and menacing by stalking, in violation of R.C. 2903.211(A). Appellant entered "not guilty" pleas to both charges. On September 17, 1996 , appellant filed a motion to dismiss the charges. Appellant's motion was overruled on September 23, 1996.
On September 27, 1996, the matter proceeded to a bench trial. Following the State's case, appellant moved for an acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A). The trial court overruled appellant's motion. Appellant presented no witnesses and proceeded straight to closing arguments. Appellant was found guilty of both charges. On October 9, 1996, appellant was sentenced to serve 180 days on each of the charges, plus $1,000 fine on each of the charges, plus court costs. Appellant was also placed on probation for five years. The trial court then suspended ninety days of the jail time as well as both fines and court costs.
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal with the following assignment of error:
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of the defendant-appellant in denying the motion for acquittal made pursuant to Crim.R 29(A)."
In the sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for acquittal made pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A), which provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial