[Cite as State v. Shoe, 2018-Ohio-3006.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

SHELBY COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 17-17-22 

 v. 

ROBERT L. SHOE, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Sidney Municipal Court 

Trial Court No. 17CRB00561 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: July 30, 2018 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Jim R. Gudgel for Appellant 

 Jeffrey L. Amick for Appellee 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-2- 

PRESTON, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Robert Shoe (“Shoe”), appeals the November 14, 

2017 judgment entry of sentence of the Sidney Municipal Court. For the reasons 

that follow, we affirm. 

{¶2} This case stems from a July 17, 2017 investigation by Officer Kevin 

Calvert (“Officer Calvert”) of the Sidney Police Department of a report concerning 

an injured and distressed dog. After locating the dog in Shoe’s backyard, Officer 

Calvert questioned Shoe. Eventually, Shoe became confrontational and 

uncooperative with Officer Calvert, cursed at Officer Calvert, and refused to provide 

Officer Calvert with his identification. On July 18, 2017, two complaints were filed 

against Shoe charging him with one count each of: obstructing official business in 

violation of R.C. 2921.31(A), a second-degree misdemeanor, and disorderly 

conduct in violation of R.C. 2917.11(A)(2), a fourth-degree misdemeanor. (Doc. 

Nos. 1, 2). On July 24, 2017, Shoe appeared for arraignment and entered pleas of 

not guilty to both counts. (See Doc. No. 4). 

{¶3} A bench trial was held on September 15, 2017. (Sept. 15, 2017 Tr. at 

1-3). The trial court found Shoe guilty of obstructing official business in violation 

of R.C. 2921.31(A) and not guilty of the disorderly-conduct charge. (Doc. No. 18); 

(See Doc. No. 22). On November 14, 2017, the trial court sentenced Shoe to 30 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-3- 

days in jail and two-years’ probation and ordered him to pay a $150 fine. (Doc. No. 

22). 

{¶4} On November 17, 2017, Shoe filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 26). 

He raises one assignment of error. 

Assignment of Error 

The Court’s verdict finding the Defendant guilty of Obstructing 

Official Business is not supported by the sufficiency of the 

evidence. 

{¶5} In his assignment of error, Shoe argues that his obstructing-officialbusiness conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, Shoe 

argues that the State did not produce sufficient evidence to prove (1) that he acted 

with the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay a public official in the performance 

of the public official’s duty or (2) that a public official was hampered or impeded in 

the performance of their duties. 

{¶6} “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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio 

St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional 

amendment on other grounds, State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997). Accordingly, 

“[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-4- 

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. 

{¶7} R.C. 2921.31(A) provides: 

No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, 

obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any 

authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do 

any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance 

of the public official’s lawful duties. 

To obtain a conviction for obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 

2921.31(A), the State must prove that (1) the defendant acted (2) without privilege 

to do so and (3) with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a 

public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity and 

that (4) the defendant’s act hampered or impeded the public official (5) in the 

performance of the public official’s lawful duties. See State v. Pierce, 3d Dist. 

Seneca No. 13-16-36, 2017-Ohio-4223, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Dice, 3d Dist. Marion 

No. 9-04-41, 2005-Ohio-2505, ¶ 19, citing R.C. 2921.31(A). “A person acts 

purposely when it is the person’s specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when 

the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless 

of what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is the offender’s specific 

intention to engage in conduct of that nature.” R.C. 2901.22(A). “‘The purpose 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-5- 

with which a person does an act is determined from the manner in which it is done, 

the means used, and all the other facts and circumstances in evidence.’” State v. 

Puterbaugh, 142 Ohio App.3d 185, 189 (4th Dist.2001), quoting State v. Hardin, 

16 Ohio App.3d 243, 245 (10th Dist.1984). 

{¶8} At trial, the State offered the testimony of Frances Knoop (“Knoop”), 

one of Shoe’s neighbors at the time of the incident in question. (Sept. 15, 2017 Tr. 

at 4). Knoop testified that, on July 17, 2017, she called the Sidney Police 

Department to report an injured dog in the backyard of a home that she later learned 

was occupied by Shoe. (Id. at 5). She stated that after law enforcement arrived and 

confronted Shoe, Shoe was “very belligerent with the officer.” (Id. at 6). According 

to Knoop, Shoe was not helpful toward Officer Calvert, and he was “just standing 

on his porch[,] yelling at [Officer Calvert], telling him to leave,” and “cursing” at 

him. (Id. at 7). She testified that Shoe and Officer Calvert’s conversation lasted 

“for maybe 20 minutes or so.” (Id. at 8). 

{¶9} On cross-examination, Knoop testified that she was able to observe 

Shoe and Officer Calvert’s interaction from a distance of approximately 35 to 40 

feet away but she said that it may have been “a little bit further away than that.” (Id.

at 11). 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-6- 

{¶10} On re-direct examination, Knoop testified that there were “several 

instances” over the course of Shoe and Officer Calvert’s interaction where Shoe 

used foul language and that he used the “F word” three or four times. (Id. at 12). 

{¶11} Next, Officer Calvert testified that he was on duty on the morning of 

July 17, 2017 when he received a call concerning an injured dog. (Id. at 14). He 

testified that Knoop was the complainant and that when he arrived, Knoop directed 

him to the location of the injured dog, which turned out to be Shoe’s yard. (Id. at 

14-15). Officer Calvert testified that when he approached Shoe’s backyard, he 

observed a gray and white pit bull “lying on its side.” (Id. at 15). According to 

Officer Calvert, the dog 

wasn’t moving. * * * I didn’t hear any whining or anything from it. It 

was panting really hard. * * * It was in distress. I approached it. It 

never moved. It just looked at me. Its face was completely wet from 

panting and slobbering. There was flies and gnats that were flying all 

over the animal, and it was just laying there defenseless. 

(Id. at 15-16). Officer Calvert testified that he then knocked on the back door of the 

residence in an attempt to see whether the resident “knew anything about the dog.” 

(Id. at 16). 

{¶12} Officer Calvert testified that although he did not initially get a 

response when he knocked on the back door, Shoe eventually emerged from the 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-7- 

residence. (Id. at 17). Officer Calvert proceeded to ask Shoe whether he knew 

anything about the dog. (Id. at 18). Officer Calvert testified that Shoe explained to 

him “that the dog was hit last night * * * by a car. [Shoe] said that it was whining 

in the house, and he wasn’t able to sleep so he took the dog out and laid it in the 

grass.” (Id.). After Shoe explained why the dog was in the backyard, Officer 

Calvert asked Shoe for his identification to issue Shoe a citation for animal cruelty. 

(Id. at 19). 

{¶13} Once Officer Calvert told Shoe that he intended to cite Shoe for animal 

cruelty, Shoe became belligerent and uncooperative. (Id. at 19-20). According to 

Officer Calvert, Shoe said, “Fuck you, dumb fucker. * * * You’re trespassing. Get 

the fuck off my property.” (Id.). Officer Calvert told Shoe that he was “going to be 

arrested if [he] continue[d] to use the profanities.” (Id. at 20). Officer Calvert 

testified that at that point, “[Shoe went] in the house, [and] apparently call[ed] the 

police to get me removed.” (Id.). When Shoe went into his residence, Officer 

Calvert also “called for a backup unit because [Shoe] was really loud, yelling, [and] 

telling [him] to get the fuck off his property.” (Id.). 

{¶14} Officer Calvert testified that after a “minute or two” in his residence, 

Shoe eventually reemerged when another law enforcement officer arrived. (Id.). 

He stated that, on returning outside, Shoe told the other law enforcement officer to 

“get that piece of shit off my property,” referring to Officer Calvert. (Id.). During 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-8- 

this entire exchange, Shoe had yet to provide Officer Calvert with his identification. 

(Id. at 21). 

{¶15} Officer Calvert testified that it “might have been 30, 35, 40 minutes” 

from the time he first engaged with Shoe until the interaction ended. (Id. at 21-22). 

He stated that had Shoe simply gone into his residence and retrieved his 

identification as requested, the interaction would not have lasted as long as it did. 

(Id. at 22). Officer Calvert testified that due to Shoe’s conduct and delay in 

furnishing him with identification, he was not able to perform his job as quickly as 

he would otherwise have been able. (Id. at 23). He testified that the animal-cruelty 

investigation was eventually turned over to the Shelby County dog warden. (Id. at 

25). 

{¶16} On cross-examination, Officer Calvert stated that Shoe “had went 

back into his house several times while we were there” but admitted that he “forgot” 

to put that detail in his initial police report. (Id. at 27, 29). He insisted that Shoe 

went “into his house two times” during their interaction although his report reflects 

only that Shoe “went to his residence and returned with his identification.” (Id. at 

28-29). 

{¶17} On re-direct examination, Officer Calvert clarified his testimony as to 

Shoe’s movements on the day of the incident. He testified: 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-9- 

To my recollection he went into his house two times and shut the door. 

Once prior to [the other law enforcement officer] arriving and then 

after [that officer] arrived, he went back into his house. And when I 

was talking to [the other law enforcement officer], he came back out 

and gave the ID to [the other officer], not me, and it was handed over 

to me. 

(Id. at 30-31). Officer Calvert stated that Shoe went back into his residence once 

prior to retrieving his identification and that the second time he went into his 

residence, he was inside for a minute or two before returning with his identification. 

(Id. at 29-30). He further testified that he “called for backup immediately when 

[Shoe] started to raise his voice telling [him] to get off his property” and that had 

Shoe not acted in that manner, he would not have called for assistance. (Id. at 31). 

{¶18} The trial court examined Officer Calvert. When asked about the time 

that elapsed from the moment Shoe was first asked to produce identification until 

Shoe finally provided his identification, Officer Calvert testified that it was 

“[p]robably ten minutes.” (Id. at 33). Officer Calvert summarized the interaction 

as follows: 

I asked him for his ID. He got very aggressive, loud, using profane 

language, telling me to get off his property. I was explaining why I 

was there. I was there investigating an incident. I had a legal right to 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-10- 

be there. He [said] “F you”. You’ve got to get off my property. So 

it was a communication between us and then he went back inside. 

(Id. at 34). He testified that the initial conversation between him and Shoe lasted 

for a few minutes before Shoe first went inside and shut the door. (Id. at 34-35). 

Shoe remained in his residence for some time until the other law enforcement officer 

arrived. (Id. at 35). At that point, Shoe came back outside where he was once again 

“abusive” with Officer Calvert. (Id.). Shoe then went inside again, came out with 

his identification, and gave the other law enforcement officer his identification 

which that officer then gave to Officer Calvert. (Id.). 

{¶19} In the present case, Shoe does not contest that Officer Calvert was 

performing an authorized act within his official capacity at the time of the incident, 

and he does not assert a claim of privilege. Thus, we presume that Officer Calvert 

was acting in the performance of his lawful duty and that Shoe was not privileged 

to conduct himself as he did. See State v. Brickner-Latham, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-

05-26, 2006-Ohio-609, ¶ 28. As such, we will review only whether the State 

presented sufficient evidence to prove that there was (1) an act by Shoe (2) done 

with the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay Officer Calvert (3) that hampered or 

impeded Officer Calvert’s performance of his lawful duty. See State v. Cobb, 2d 

Dist. Montgomery No. 19474, 2003-Ohio-3034, ¶ 8, fn. 1. 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-11- 

{¶20} We conclude that Shoe’s obstructing-official-business conviction is 

supported by sufficient evidence. First, the State presented sufficient evidence to 

support a finding that Shoe engaged in an “act.” “‘Ohio courts have consistently 

held that in order to violate the obstructing official business statute a defendant must 

engage in some affirmative or overt act * * *.’” Pierce, 2017-Ohio-4223, at ¶ 12, 

quoting State v. Crowell, 189 Ohio App.3d 468, 2010-Ohio-4917, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), 

quoting State v. Harrell, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21736, 2007-Ohio-4550, ¶ 12. 

“A mere failure or refusal to respond to an officer’s request does not constitute 

obstructing official business.” Crowell at ¶ 11, citing Harrell at ¶ 12, citing State v. 

Christman, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19039, 2002-Ohio-2915; Brickner-Latham at 

¶ 26 (noting that “the refusal to produce identification upon request by a police 

officer will not support a finding of obstructing official business”), citing State v. 

McCrone, 63 Ohio App.3d 831, 835 (9th Dist.1989). However, failure to respond 

to a law enforcement officer’s request, such as a request for identification, coupled 

with “loud, boisterous, and uncooperative conduct” or a retreat from law 

enforcement officers into a house or other building may constitute an affirmative or 

overt act for purposes of R.C. 2921.31(A). See Pierce at ¶ 13 (determining that 

Pierce “moved into the realm of affirmative action when he decided to flee into the 

house in the midst of a police investigation and attempted to close the door on the 

officers”); State v. Florence, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-08-148, 2014-Ohio-
Case No. 17-17-22 

-12- 

2337, ¶ 12-13 (“[A] defendant’s volume and demeanor making it impossible to 

investigate a complaint has been found sufficient to constitute an act for an 

obstructing official business conviction.”), citing City of Warren v. Lucas, 11th Dist. 

Trumbull No. 99-T-0019, 2000 WL 655446 (May 19, 2000). 

{¶21} Here, any rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt 

that Shoe engaged in an affirmative or overt act. Officer Calvert testified that as 

soon as Shoe was asked for his identification and informed that he was going to be 

cited for animal cruelty, Shoe became belligerent, profane, and uncooperative. 

Shoe’s choice to adopt an antagonistic demeanor with Officer Calvert constitutes an 

affirmative act. State v. Parkhurst, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2015-T-0041, 2016-

Ohio-1018, ¶ 31 (“Parkhurst’s argumentativeness constituted an affirmative act that, 

according to the testimony of Patrolman Hodge, did delay him from issuing the 

citation.”); State v. Willey, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2014CA00222, 2015-Ohio-4572, ¶ 

24 (“[Willey] did not physically resist police in the instant case but her 

argumentative demeanor needlessly escalated the entire incident and entirely stalled 

the investigation into the original complaint.”); Florence at ¶ 12-13 (“Florence’s 

purposeful loud, boisterous, and uncooperative conduct made the performance of 

[the deputies’] duties more difficult.”). Moreover, after being informed that Officer 

Calvert intended to issue him a citation, Shoe withdrew into his home, depriving 

Officer Calvert of the ability to ask Shoe additional questions pertinent to his 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-13- 

animal-cruelty investigation and further press Shoe to provide identification. 

Although Shoe returned outside once the other law enforcement officer arrived, 

Shoe failed to bring identification with him, and he still did not provide Officer 

Calvert his name. Only after going back into his residence again for a couple 

minutes did Shoe reemerge and provide Officer Calvert with his identification. 

Shoe’s repeated trips into his residence and away from Officer Calvert’s 

investigation, which had the effect of delaying Officer Calvert from finding out 

Shoe’s identity, also constitute an affirmative act. See Pierce at ¶ 13-14; State v. 

Harris, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27639, 2015-Ohio-5378, ¶ 8 (concluding that “Mr. 

Harris’s retreat into his house after being ordered by Deputy Breedan to put his 

hands on top of his head and to talk with him constituted an overt act that was 

sufficient to support his conviction for obstructing official business.”). See also 

Brickner-Latham at ¶ 27 (recognizing that “where an individual ‘also takes 

affirmative actions to hamper or impede the police from finding out his or her 

identity, the defendant may be guilty of obstructing official business’”), quoting 

State v. Justice, 4th Dist. Pike No. 99CA631, 1999 WL 1125113, *5 (Nov. 16, 

1999). In sum, Shoe’s decision to twice remove himself from the scene of Officer 

Calvert’s investigation before identifying himself and his decision to employ crude 

and disruptive language with Officer Calvert are sufficient to satisfy the affirmative 

act requirement of R.C. 2921.31(A). See Pierce at ¶ 14; Harris at ¶ 8; Florence at 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-14- 

¶ 11-13; Dayton v. Turic, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20149, 2005-Ohio-131, ¶ 26;

In re Sommer, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2004CA00074, 2004-Ohio-5885, ¶ 12. 

{¶22} In addition, a rational trier of fact, evaluating the manner of Shoe’s 

conduct and all other facts and circumstances, could find that it was Shoe’s specific 

intention to prevent, obstruct, or delay Officer Calvert’s investigation. Pairing 

Shoe’s belligerence, profanity, uncooperativeness, and repeated demands that 

Officer Calvert “[g]et the fuck off” his property with his persistent failure to provide 

identification, a rational trier of fact could infer that it was Shoe’s specific intent to 

obstruct Officer Calvert’s investigation by rendering him incapable of asking further 

questions or to delay the issuance of a citation for animal cruelty. See State v. Street, 

2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26501, 2015-Ohio-2789, ¶ 20-23 (suggesting that a trier 

of fact could find that Street purposely hampered or impeded a police officer based 

on Street’s “refus[al] to provide [the police officer] with his personal information as 

requested,” “yelling, cursing, and interrupting [the police officer]” instead of 

answering questions, and “talk[ing] over the other officers and curs[ing] at them, 

which prevented the officers from calming down the situation”); State v. Burns, 2d 

Dist. Montgomery No. 22674, 2010-Ohio-2831, ¶ 7, 26 (sustaining a jury’s 

inference of a purpose to delay or obstruct a police investigation based on Burns’s 

“behavior of yelling and screaming” including “using foul language and demanding 

that [the police officer] leave” and “call[ing] 911 and demand[ing] the presence of 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-15- 

a supervisor”); State v. Sims, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22528, 2008-Ohio-6242, ¶ 

20 (suggesting that a purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay can be inferred from the 

duration of an encounter between a law enforcement officer and a defendant, a 

defendant’s profanity and screaming, and a defendant’s refusal to comply with a 

law enforcement officer’s orders); N. Ridgeville v. Elliott, 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 

05CA008686 and 05CA008687, 2006-Ohio-3332, ¶ 3, 9-12. Furthermore, Shoe’s 

multiple trips into his residence during the course of Officer Calvert’s investigation 

support an inference that Shoe intended to obstruct Officer Calvert’s investigation 

and delay the issuance of a citation for animal cruelty for as long as possible. See 

Pierce at ¶ 15 (noting that Pierce’s actions demonstrated an intent to hamper or 

impede, in part, because Pierce “‘darted’ into [a] house and attempted to shut the 

front door”). Although Shoe argues that he went into his residence not for the 

purpose of any delay but to call for additional law enforcement assistance because 

he did not agree with Officer Calvert’s presence on his property, his argument is 

undermined by the fact that, rather than returning to the scene of Officer Calvert’s 

investigation as quickly as possible to submit to possible further questioning, Shoe 

remained in his residence until the other law enforcement officer arrived. 

Additionally, while Shoe had an opportunity to retrieve his identification the first 

time he went into his residence, he did not bring it with him when he returned to 

meet the other officer; instead, Shoe had to go back into his residence yet again to 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-16- 

retrieve his identification, sequestering Shoe from the investigation and further 

delaying Officer Calvert from learning Shoe’s identity. As such, we conclude that 

a rational trier of fact could infer that Shoe purposely acted to prevent, obstruct, or 

delay Officer Calvert from performing an authorized act within the scope of Officer 

Calvert’s official capacity. 

{¶23} Finally, the State presented sufficient evidence from which any 

rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Shoe’s conduct 

hampered or impeded Officer Calvert in the performance of his duties. “The proper 

focus in a prosecution for obstructing official business is on the defendant’s conduct, 

verbal or physical, and its effect on the public official’s ability to perform the 

official’s lawful duties.” State v. Wellman, 173 Ohio App.3d 494, 2007-Ohio-2953, 

¶ 12 (1st Dist.). “[I]n order to be convicted for obstructing official business, there 

must be evidence presented indicating the defendant * * * interfered with the 

performance of an official duty, thereby making the performance of that duty more 

difficult.” State v. Ertel, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2015-12-109, 2016-Ohio-2682, 

¶ 8, citing State v. Standifer, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2011-07-071, 2012-Ohio3132, ¶ 28, citing State v. Whitt, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA89-06-091, 1990 WL 

82592, *2 (June 18, 1990). See State v. Ellis, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24003, 

2011-Ohio-2967, ¶ 59 (noting that to “hamper or impede” a law enforcement 

officer, “‘there must be some substantial stoppage of the officer’s progress’” but 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-17- 

that there is no “‘finite period of time [that] constitutes a “substantial stoppage”’”), 

quoting Wellman at ¶ 17-18. 

{¶24} Here, Officer Calvert testified to a delay of approximately ten minutes 

from the time he first requested that Shoe produce his identification until Shoe 

provided his identification. Officer Calvert estimated that the entire episode took 

between 30 and 40 minutes and that, but for Shoe’s conduct, he would have been 

able to conclude his investigation sooner. Knoop’s testimony supports Officer 

Calvert’s assertion as to the duration of the encounter. According to Officer Calvert, 

Shoe’s actions rendered it impossible for him to perform his job as quickly as he 

would otherwise have been able. The delay occasioned by Shoe’s conduct made it 

more difficult for Officer Calvert to continue his animal-cruelty investigation and 

to determine whether to issue Shoe a citation. See State v. Shoemaker, 1st Dist. 

Hamilton No. C-140724, 2015-Ohio-4645, ¶ 15, 19 (finding that a five-minute delay 

in an investigation of a hit-skip collision hampered or impeded a law enforcement 

officer’s performance of his duties); Wellman at ¶ 18-19 (suggesting that a delay of 

“approximately two to five minutes” can constitute hampering or impeding). Thus, 

we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence that Shoe hampered or 

impeded a public official in the performance of his lawful duties. 

{¶25} Therefore, viewing the evidence presented in a light most favorable to 

the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found that Shoe acted with the 
Case No. 17-17-22 

-18- 

purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay Officer Calvert’s performance of an 

authorized act within his official capacity and that Officer Calvert was hampered or 

impeded in the performance of his lawful duties. Accordingly, we conclude that 

Shoe’s obstructing-official-business conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. 

{¶26} Shoe’s assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶27} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the 

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 Judgment Affirmed 

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and SHAW, J., concur. 

/jlr