State v. Winters
| Decision Date | 17 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 29157 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 2061 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. AALIYAH WINTERS Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court Trial Court Case No. CRB 2100049
ERIK R. BLAINE, Atty. Reg. No. 0080726, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, City of Vandalia Prosecutor's Office, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
JAMES S. SWEENEY, Atty. Reg. No. 0086402, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Aaliyah Winters appeals from her conviction for disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree, in the Vandalia Municipal Court following a bench trial. Winters alleges that her conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Further, Winters claims that her attorney was ineffective for failing to file a request for discovery. For the reasons outlined below, we modify her conviction to disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor, vacate the imposition of the 30-day suspended jail sentence, and affirm the trial court's judgment in all other respects.
{¶ 2} Winters was charged by complaint with one count of disorderly conduct, in violation of R.C. 2917.11(A)(3). The case proceeded to a bench trial during which the following evidence was presented.
{¶ 3} Winters testified that on the evening of January 6, 2021, she went to a Dollar Tree store with her two-year-old daughter to buy a pop. When Winters entered the store, she was on the phone and was told by an employee to hurry up, because the store was going to close in four minutes. Winters observed it was 8:34 p.m. and asked the employee what time the store closed. The employee indicated the store closed at 9 p.m.
{¶ 4} Winters told the person she was on the phone with that she hated when employees try to close the stores early just because they want to get home. Apparently having overheard Winters' comment, the employee responded to Winters. While initially Winters ignored the employee's comments, she eventually exchanged words with the employee. At some point, the employee told Winters she would call the police. Winters decided to stay inside the store and wait for the police to arrive.
{¶ 5} Deputy Tori Bargo of the Montgomery County Sheriffs Office testified that she responded to a dispatch regarding a disorderly subject refusing to leave the store and arguing with employees. When she arrived, Bargo spoke with the employee of the store, who indicated that the argument with Winters started because she refused to put a mask on her and her daughter. At the time, the COVID pandemic was ongoing and the mask mandate was in effect. As a result of refusing to put on a mask and having a verbal altercation with the employee, Winters was asked to leave the store. According to Winters, she was wearing a mask that day but her two-year-old daughter was not because Winters did not think that she was required to wear one.
{¶ 6} Bargo located Winters in the middle of the store. At that time, Winters was not arguing with the employee but was yelling on her phone very loudly about the employee. Bargo advised Winters that she needed to speak with her but that they needed to do it outside the store, because the employee wanted Winters to leave. Winters told Bargo that neither she nor the employee could make her leave until it was closing time or she got her pop.
{¶ 7} Bargo tried to explain to Winters that she would listen to Winters' statements but that they had to get outside the store. Bargo informed Winters that she needed to stop screaming and cursing at the employee, to whomever was on the phone, and at Bargo because Winters was causing a scene and being disorderly. Bargo told Winters to cease her conduct and that if she did not, then Winters could go to jail for disorderly conduct. Meanwhile, the employee was verbally arguing with Winters about having to leave the store and about the verbal altercation earlier. Bargo explained the exchanges between Winters and the employee as "challenging," involving not direct threats but veiled threats. Bargo repeatedly had to separate Winters and the employee, both of whom were loud and "on the same level of excited," telling the employee to return to the front of the store while trying to get Winters to leave the store. Bargo tried to reason with Winters for approximately seven to eight minutes inside the store.
{¶ 8} Although Winters eventually agreed to leave the store and moved toward the exit, she changed her mind and stopped, refusing to leave. As Winters and Bargo progressed toward the exit, Winters again engaged in a verbal altercation with the employee. After Bargo told the employee to walk away, she turned her attention back to Winters, placed a hand on Winters' left arm, and told Winters it was time to leave and to go outside. Winters told Bargo not to touch her and used profane language directed at Bargo. Bargo testified that things escalated from there.
{¶ 9} According to Bargo, when she and Winters approached the front of the store, instead of turning left to go toward the exit, Winters went straight and advanced toward the employee who was approximately five feet away, but Bargo grabbed Winters' coat to stop her. Winters denied that she made any movement towards the employee, however, she did admit that she was still arguing with the employee during that time and both parties were mad.
{¶ 10} Bargo testified that she attempted to place Winters up against a cart but Winters actively resisted and argued with Bargo. Bargo also attempted to get Winters to the ground but was unsuccessful. Winters claimed she told Bargo to stop because she was pregnant and, therefore, refused to go to the ground. During the struggle, Winters had her cell phone in her hand, which was thrown to the floor and broken. Eventually, a second unit arrived and the deputies were able to get Winters handcuffed and out of the store. Winters' lip was injured during the detention. In the process of getting Winters out of the store, Bargo's finger got caught in the handcuffs and was injured. Bargo testified that the environment inside the store was very hostile and that although she did not see a drawback of a punch, she saw physical danger cues.
{¶ 11} Once Winters was removed from the store, she was placed in the backseat of Bargo's police cruiser, which was audio- and video-recorded. While in the backseat, Winters spoke with another officer, Sergeant Vitali, who had arrived on scene. When Sgt. Vitali asked Winters why she did not just leave the store when they asked her to, she explained that she was mad and just wanted to tell her story. She admitted that she should have just left the store. Winters admitted at trial that Bargo asked her to leave the store "like twice" and she did not immediately leave the store.
{¶ 12} Upon the close of the State's case-in-chief, Winters made a general Crim.R. 29(A) motion that the trial court overruled. After Winters testified and Bargo provided rebuttal testimony, the trial court found Winters guilty of disorderly conduct, in violation of R.C. 2917.11(A)(3) and (E)(3)(a), a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. The trial court immediately imposed sentence of 30 days in jail, suspended on the condition that no criminal offenses occur for the next two years, plus a $25 fine and court costs. Winters timely appealed from the trial court's judgment.
{¶ 13} Winters raises the following three assignment of errors:
{¶ 14} Winters argues that because she was charged under R.C. 2917.11(A)(3), the State was required to prove that the words she used during the altercation amounted to "fighting words" in order for her conviction to stand. Winters contends there was no evidence to support that she used fighting words. The State, on the other hand, claims that Winters was not specifically charged with the (A)(3) section but with R.C. 2917.11 (A) generally, because she was actually charged with R.C. 2917.11(E)(3)(a), meaning that she could be convicted under any subsection of R.C. 2917.11(A). The State did not identify which subsection was proven at trial, only that Winters persisted in her disorderly conduct despite reasonable warnings to stop. The trial court specifically found Winters guilty of disorderly conduct, in violation of R.C. 2917.11(A)(3), in addition to R.C. 2917.11(E)(3)(a).
{¶ 15} Pursuant to R.C. 2917.11(A)(3), a person commits disorderly conduct when the person "recklessly cause[s] inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following: * * * [i]nsulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response[.]" Disorderly conduct is a minor misdemeanor. R.C. 2917.11(E)(2). But, if the "offender persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist," the offense is elevated to a fourth-degree misdemeanor. R.C 2917.11(E)(3)(a). R.C. 2945.75(A)(1) provides that when the presence of one or more additional elements makes an offense one of more serious degree, the complaint ...
To continue reading
Request your trial