[Cite as State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-5356.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 CLARK COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

JOHN M. WILLIAMS 

Defendant-Appellant 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Appellate Case No. 2015-CA-113 

Trial Court Case No. 15-CRB-2855 

(Criminal Appeal from Clark County 

 Municipal Court) 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N 

Rendered on the 12th day of August, 2016. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

T. JOANN HUENKE, Atty. Reg. No. 0073600, Clark County Prosecutor’s Office, 50 East 

Columbia Street, Springfield, Ohio 45502 

 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

 

STACEY PAVLATOS, Atty. Reg. No. 0012392, 700 East High Street, Springfield, Ohio 

45505 

 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

HALL, J. 

{¶ 1} John M. Williams appeals from his conviction and sentence following a bench 

trial on one count of first-degree-misdemeanor domestic violence. 

{¶ 2} In two related assignments of error, Mr. Williams challenges the legal 
-2- 

sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence to support his conviction. 

{¶ 3} The present appeal stems from an incident that occurred when 77-year-old 

Mr. Williams came home on August 3, 2015 and found his front door locked. Earlier in the 

day, he and his 72-year-old wife, Ladonna Williams, had engaged in an argument outside 

a bank about obtaining a divorce or a dissolution. After the argument, Mrs. Williams 

returned to the couple’s house alone and packed a week’s worth of Mr. Williams’ clothes 

and personal items in a duffel bag and a small grocery bag. She also locked the front 

door and placed a tape recorder near it while awaiting her husband’s return. 

{¶ 4} When Mr. Williams came home around 9:30 p.m., he knocked on the front 

door while starting to open it with a key. Upon hearing her husband, Mrs. Williams turned 

on the tape recorder and opened the door part way. She testified at trial that she pitched 

the small grocery bag toward Mr. Williams, who was standing outside the door. She then 

picked up the duffel bag and moved toward him with it, intending to give it to him. Mrs. 

Williams testified that Mr. Williams “shove[d] her” as she was handing him the bag. (Tr. 

at 24). More precisely, he put his hand on the duffel bag and pushed it back against her, 

knocking her down. (Id. at 24, 59, 63-65). She stated that “[t]he force of being shoved 

knocked [her] completely around.” (Id. at 24). She fell and her face hit the floor. (Id.). Her 

arm also hit a ceramic rabbit. (Id. at 24, 35). She suffered a cut, an abrasion, and some 

bruising as a result of the fall. (Id. at 12-14, 34-40). On cross examination, Mrs. Williams 

acknowledged having testified at a protection-order hearing that “we had a little shoving 

match and he went and as I hand the satchel there, he he [sic] shoved it against me which 

knocks knocked [sic] me against the back door the door [sic] * * *.” (Id. at 59). 

{¶ 5} The State also introduced an audio recording of conversation Mrs. Williams 
-3- 

had captured on the tape recorder she had placed near the front door. On the recording, 

Mr. and Mrs. Williams can be heard talking immediately after the incident. Mrs. Williams 

stated that her husband had knocked her down. (Id. at 26). Mr. Williams directed a stream 

of profanity at his wife and stated that he had “pushed her down (inaudible) the door.” (Id. 

at 26-27). Mrs. Williams then told someone on the telephone: “He comes in and he shoves 

me.” (Id. at 28). Mr. Williams can be heard telling Mrs. Williams that “the door pushed 

[her] down.” (Id.). He also explained to the unidentified person on the telephone: “She 

locked me out and I pushed her.” (Id.). 

{¶ 6} For his part, Mr. Williams testified at trial that he pushed the door to enter the 

house and that his wife was pushing the door back against him when she stumbled over 

the cement rabbit and fell, resulting in her injuries. (Id. at 96). He stated that he did not 

anticipate the door hitting Mrs. Williams or her falling when he pushed it. (Id. at 96-97). 

{¶ 7} Based on the evidence presented, the trial court found Mr. Williams guilty of 

domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). It imposed a $250 fine plus court costs. 

The sentence was suspended pending appeal. 

{¶ 8} As set forth above, Mr. Williams’ assignments of error challenge the legal 

sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence to sustain his conviction under R.C. 

2919.25(A), which provides: “No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause 

physical harm to a family or household member.” The term “knowingly” is defined in R.C. 

2901.22(B) as follows: “A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person 

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

of a certain nature.” 

{¶ 9} Mr. Williams argues that the evidence does not support a finding that he 
-4- 

“knowingly” caused Mrs. Williams physical harm. He reasons that physical harm to his 

wife was not a probable result of him “pushing away” the duffel bag. (Appellant’s brief at 

12). He asserts that he simply responded to her aggressive behavior “by parrying the 

duffel bag away as she thrust it at him[.]” (Id. at 13). Mr. Williams insists that no “shoving 

match” occurred and that he did not strike his wife with the door. (Id.) But regardless of 

how or why she fell, Mr. Williams contends the State presented no evidence that he knew 

his actions more likely than not would result in physical harm to her. (Id. at 14). 

{¶ 10} When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, he is arguing 

that the State presented inadequate evidence on an element of the offense to sustain the 

verdict as a matter of law. State v. Hawn, 138 Ohio App.3d 449, 471, 741 N.E.2d 594 (2d 

Dist.2000). “An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence 

to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine 

whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant’s 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the 

evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have 

found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. 

Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. 

{¶ 11} Our analysis is different when reviewing a manifest-weight argument. When 

a conviction is challenged on appeal as being against the weight of the evidence, an 

appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable 

inferences, consider witness credibility, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in 

the evidence, the trier of fact “clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage 

of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. 
-5- 

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). A judgment should be 

reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence “only in the exceptional 

case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” State v. Martin, 20 

Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). 

{¶ 12} With the foregoing standards in mind, we conclude that Mr. Williams’ 

domestic-violence conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against 

the manifest weight of the evidence. The only disputed issue is whether he knowingly

caused his wife’s physical harm, i.e., whether he was aware that his conduct probably 

would cause the result that occurred. 

{¶ 13} Although the evidence varied in some details, it supports a finding that Mr. 

Williams shoved or pushed a door and/or a duffel bag into Mrs. Williams with sufficient 

force to knock her “completely around” and to the ground. The audio recording discussed 

above reflects that Mr. Williams was irate at the time. He also told someone on the 

recording: “She locked me out and I pushed her.” Viewing the evidence in a light most 

favorable to the State, the trial court reasonably could have found that Mr. Williams 

knowingly caused physical harm to his wife. Therefore, his conviction is supported by 

legally sufficient evidence. The conviction also is not against the manifest weight of the 

evidence because the trial court did not clearly lose its way and create a manifest 

miscarriage of justice. The evidence does not weigh heavily against the conviction. 

{¶ 14} Mr. Williams’ two assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of 

the Clark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 
-6- 

DONOVAN, P.J., and WELBAUM, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

T. Joann Heunke 

Stacey Pavlatos 

Hon. Thomas E. Trempe