[Cite as State v. Platt, 2020-Ohio-1430.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

ADRIAN PLATT II, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2019-06-089 

O P I N I O N 

4/13/2020 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT 

Case No. 19 CRB 01595 

Neal D. Schuett, City of Hamilton Prosecuting Attorney, 345 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 

45011, for appellee 

Christopher P. Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant 

 RINGLAND, J. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Adrian Platt II, appeals from his conviction in the Hamilton 

Municipal Court for domestic violence. 

{¶ 2} In May 2019, appellant was charged by complaint with one count of domestic 

violence, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). The charge resulted 

from a confrontation between appellant and the mother of his child. The case proceeded 
Butler CA2019-06-089

- 2 - 

to a bench trial in June 2019. At trial only two witnesses testified, the victim and appellant, 

and no other evidence was submitted. The victim testified that she was in a romantic 

relationship with appellant, lived together with him, and had a child by him. On one evening 

in April 2019, the victim was home alone taking care of their infant child while appellant was 

out drinking and bar hopping with friends. The victim testified that appellant's absence from 

the home caused her to become angry. This anger was exacerbated by appellant's failure 

to answer several of her telephone calls. When she did make contact with appellant, she 

proceeded to yell at him with profanity-laden language. 

{¶ 3} Eventually, appellant returned home. Both witnesses testified that appellant 

was intoxicated. Upon his arrival, appellant went to the couple's bedroom to go to sleep. 

The victim then checked appellant's telephone and found messages from other women. 

Further displeased by this, the victim testified that she began to express her frustration by 

demanding that appellant get out of bed and leave the apartment. Appellant disregarded 

these initial entreaties so the victim began to force appellant out of the bed. In her effort to 

remove him from the bed, she lost her balance and fell, hitting her head against a nearby 

dresser. 

{¶ 4} Having been removed from the bed, appellant got up, gathered some clothes, 

and headed to the door to leave the apartment. Seeing appellant moving to leave, the 

victim testified that she decided she no longer wanted him to leave and attempted to stop 

his departure. Therefore, the victim put herself between the door and appellant. A struggle 

ensued as appellant tried to open the door and exit, while the victim tried to keep him from 

leaving. In her resistance, the victim testified that she both scratched and pushed appellant 

to keep him away from the door. The victim testified that "I want to say he put his hands up 

in front of his face and I went and he went back and it busted my lip." Later the victim 

clarified by saying "when we were at the front door, when [appellant] went back to cover up 
Butler CA2019-06-089

- 3 - 

his face and I went forward, he like kind of guarded his face, it hit me back in my face and 

my lip did get busted." The injury occurred as appellant was reaching around the victim 

while simultaneously defending his face. The victim testified that she did not think that 

appellant was trying to cause the injury, but it was part of the heat of the moment while he 

attempted to leave the apartment. 

{¶ 5} Appellant's testimony related the same basic facts as the victim. Appellant 

testified that he returned home and tried to go to sleep. The victim yelled at him and told 

him to leave, so appellant started to leave. At the door, appellant was met by the victim, 

who got up in his face, and he had to move her out of the way to open the door. Appellant 

testified that he did not realize the victim suffered an injury and did not recall seeing any 

injuries on her the following day. 

{¶ 6} Ultimately, the trial court found appellant guilty as charged based upon the 

victim's injury to her lip. The trial court found that injury was a reasonably expected outcome 

of appellant forcibly moving her out of his way. Furthermore, the trial court found that selfdefense did not apply because there was no evidence that appellant was in fear of personal 

harm. The trial court sentenced appellant to a suspended jail term, two years of community 

control, and a fine. 

{¶ 7} Appellant now appeals, raising two assignments of error for review. For ease 

of analysis we will discuss the assignments of error out of order. 

{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 2: 

{¶ 9} MR. PLATT'S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF 

THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶ 10} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that his conviction was 

against the manifest weight of the evidence because there was unpersuasive evidence that 

appellant knowingly caused the victim injury. 
Butler CA2019-06-089

- 4 - 

{¶ 11} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge requires an appellate court to 

examine the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at trial, to support one side of the 

issue over the other. State v. Chasteen, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-12-223, 2014-Ohio4622, ¶ 10. To do this, an appellate court must review the entire record, consider witness 

credibility, and weigh the evidence with all the reasonable inferences. State v. Grinstead, 

194 Ohio App.3d 755, 2011-Ohio-3018, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.). In conducting this review, an 

appellate court must determine whether the trier of fact, in resolving conflicts in the 

evidence, clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice such that the 

conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Taylor, 12th Dist. Fayette No. 

CA2018-11-021, 2019-Ohio-3437, ¶ 42. While the manifest weight challenge requires the 

reviewing court to weigh credibility, an appellate court must be mindful that the trier of fact 

has the primary role in weighing the evidence and evaluating witness credibility. State v. 

Salinger, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-10-208, 2015-Ohio-2821, ¶ 15, citing State v. 

DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). Therefore, an appellate court will overturn a 

conviction as being against the manifest weight only in extraordinary circumstances, to 

correct a manifest injustice, where the evidence at trial weighs heavily in favor of acquittal. 

State v. Cobb, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2007-06-153, 2008-Ohio-5210, ¶ 95, citing State v. 

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). 

{¶ 12} Appellant was convicted of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). 

Pursuant to this statute, the prosecution had to prove that appellant knowingly caused or 

attempted to cause physical harm to a family or household member. Id. Therefore, the 

culpable mental state for the offense is knowingly. Knowingly is defined by statute as "when 

the person is aware that the person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will 

probably be of a certain nature." R.C. 2901.22(B). As this court has previously explained, 

[a]bsent a defendant's admission regarding his knowledge, 
Butler CA2019-06-089

- 5 - 

whether a person acts knowingly can only be determined from 

all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the doing 

of the act itself. 

State v. Hilton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-03-064, 2015-Ohio-5198, ¶ 20. 

{¶ 13} We find that appellant's conviction was against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. The victim testified that she was angry with appellant and was in an excited 

emotional state. In this state she initially wanted appellant to leave. To escape the tense 

environment, appellant decided to simply leave. Reconsidering her demand, the victim 

changed her mind and tried to stop appellant's departure. Both the victim and appellant 

testified that appellant's only force against the victim was to push or "nudge" her out of his 

way in his effort to extricate himself from the situation. Additionally, the victim testified that 

"I don't think he was trying to bust my lip" and "I don't think he initially was just like let me 

just hit you in your mouth." While we note that an intent to cause harm is not the requisite 

mental state, there is simply too little evidence that appellant's limited action was of such a 

knowing and violent significance that the prosecution proved appellant was aware that his 

conduct would probably cause the certain result of injuring the victim's lip. 

{¶ 14} Appellant testified that as he was trying to leave, he had to move the victim 

out of the way. Neither the victim, nor appellant testified that appellant struck out at the 

victim. The prosecution did not elicit any specific testimony as to how the lip injury occurred. 

Therefore, the record only shows that the victim became injured as a part of her own actions 

against appellant, i.e. her effort in stopping him from leaving. While it is troubling that the 

victim's testimony was markedly different from the charging instrument in the record, the 

trial court sustained appellant's objection to the introduction of the victim's prior inconsistent 

statement to police and the prosecution did not offer evidence beyond the victim's 

testimony. 

{¶ 15} Consequently, appellant's conviction is against the weight of the evidence and 
Butler CA2019-06-089

- 6 - 

the second assignment of error is sustained. 

{¶ 16} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶ 17} THE STATE PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT MR. 

PLATT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. 

{¶ 18} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the evidence was 

insufficient to convict him because the prosecution failed to prove that he acted with the 

requisite mental state for the offense. The resolution of the second assignment of error 

moots appellant's first assignment. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). 

{¶ 19} Judgement reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further 

proceedings. 

HENDRICKSON, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.