[Cite as State v. Knipe, 2024-Ohio-2729.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 VS.

JUSTIN KNIPE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-230681

TRIAL NO. C-23CRB-6736-A

 O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: July 19, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant 

Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

BERGERON, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} A two-year romantic relationship came to a tumultuous conclusion after

defendant-appellant Justin Knipe’s girlfriend shared her desire to relocate to 

Columbus to be closer to her family. Mr. Knipe relapsed and began drinking, and the 

resulting quarrel culminated in allegations that he had grabbed and choked his 

girlfriend and slammed her head into a door frame. Following the affray, Mr. Knipe 

was charged with domestic violence and obstructing official business. After a bench 

trial, he was convicted of domestic violence, sentenced to 180 days in jail with 165 days 

suspended and 15 days credit for time served, and placed on 11 months of community 

control. He now appeals, maintaining that the trial court erred when it found him 

guilty of domestic violence. Having carefully reviewed the evidence and the record, 

we overrule his sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I.

{¶2} Mr. Knipe and Mya Gray began dating in early 2021 and moved in 

together the following year. But in April 2023, matters quickly soured between the 

couple when Ms. Gray informed him that she was moving back to Columbus to be 

closer to her family. Upset by this news, Mr. Knipe—who had recently become sober 

after struggles with alcohol—told her that he was going to hit the bottle. Ms. Gray had 

to leave, so out of concern for his well-being, she took his identification, hoping to 

thwart his plan to purchase alcohol. 

{¶3} According to Ms. Gray, when she returned home about an hour later, 

she found Mr. Knipe drunk in the living room, dancing and listening to music. As he 

continued to drink, his volume and crudeness escalated. She sought help from his 

family to address his relapse. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

{¶4} Worried that he would hurt himself (or her), she collected the knives 

and the beer in the apartment and locked them in the trunk of her car. When she 

returned, he was drinking rubbing alcohol while on the phone with his sponsor. She 

swiftly confiscated the rubbing alcohol and stored it in her trunk. While she was 

outside, she spoke with Mr. Knipe’s father for about an hour. This time, upon her 

return, she observed Mr. Knipe smashing things. She called his sister to discuss a plan 

to get him into rehab while she cleaned up the mess. And after she hung up, she 

instructed him to take a shower and sober up. 

{¶5} She decided that she did not want to remain in the shared apartment

and began gathering her belongings. When Mr. Knipe stepped out of the shower, she 

confronted him about inflammatory content that she discovered on his phone, which 

she believed laid bare a pattern of cheating and lying. He responded by pushing her 

against the wall and trying to kiss her, but she rebuffed his advances. He then declared 

that she could not leave, grabbed her, threw her down on the futon, and climbed on 

top of her. He grabbed her by the neck and began choking her. She testified that she 

pleaded with him to stop because she couldn’t breathe. She wriggled away from him 

and ran to the bedroom to retrieve her car keys, but he caught up to her, threw her on 

the ground, climbed on top of her, and choked her again.

{¶6} Again, she managed to push him off. At trial, she claimed that she then

ran to leave, but during cross-examination (after body-camera footage of her speaking 

with officers following the incident was played), she acknowledged that she first tried 

to collect her belongings—specifically her air fryer—and place them by the front door. 

He stopped her by pushing her into a closet, prompting her to call 911. As she tried to 

speak with emergency assistance, he grabbed her neck and slammed her head into the 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

door frame at least four times. During the call, she yelled out their address and Mr. 

Knipe’s full name to the dispatcher, and she can be overheard calling him a profanity

and telling him that “no one wants you in their life.” Eventually, she managed to get 

away from him and fled from the apartment.

{¶7} Colerain Township Police Officer Jack Yelmgren and his partner 

responded to the domestic violence call and arrived at the apartment complex, 

discovering Mr. Knipe and Ms. Gray in the parking lot. The officers separated the 

couple and interviewed them separately. The officers charged Mr. Knipe with 

domestic violence, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and 

obstructing official business, a second-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 

2921.31.

{¶8} During the bench trial in November 2023, Ms. Gray, Officer Yelmgren, 

and Mr. Knipe’s father testified. Ms. Gray recounted the evening during which the 

affray occurred, and generally, her description of the events seemed to match what she 

had recounted to the responding officers immediately following the incident. But 

defense counsel cross-examined her on some inconsistencies related to her attempt to 

collect her belongings prior to fleeing and the confrontation regarding inflammatory 

materials she discovered on Mr. Knipe’s phone. Officer Yelmgren did not recall seeing 

any marks on Ms. Gray and testified that he would have photographed any visible 

injuries (and he took no such photographs). He recalled that Mr. Knipe, on the other 

hand, had a bruise on his left arm, blood above his eyebrow, and a cut on his nose. 

And finally, Mr. Knipe’s father shared that he had invited Ms. Gray to stay with him if 

something happened, but she did not take him up on his offer.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

{¶9} The state tendered one exhibit: Ms. Gray’s 911 call recording. During 

the call, Ms. Gray can first be heard insulting Mr. Knipe and telling him to “get off,” 

move out of her way, and “stop touching me.” Mr. Knipe was whispering at her (but 

the contents of his whispers are indiscernible). Eventually, a physical struggle 

between the two can be heard—Ms. Gray is repeatedly screaming for help and yelling 

the address and Mr. Knipe’s name. As the sounds of a physical struggle subside, she 

indicates that Mr. Knipe bashed her head into the door frame and keeps trying to 

“choke her out.” 

{¶10} Mr. Knipe tendered five exhibits: two videos of body-camera footage 

from Ms. Gray’s conversation with the responding officers the night of the incident

and three photographs of Mr. Knipe’s visible marks at the time of his arrest (a bruise, 

some blood, and a cut). Mr. Knipe used the body-camera footage to impeach Ms. Gray 

because the footage contradicted some of her testimony. 

{¶11} Ultimately, the court found Mr. Knipe not guilty of obstructing official 

business but guilty of domestic violence. The court held a sentencing hearing in 

December 2023 and imposed a 180-day jail sentence with 165 days suspended and 15 

days credit for time served. Mr. Knipe was placed on 11 months of community control

with orders to complete a drug treatment program, abstain from alcohol and all other 

substances (without a valid prescription), submit to random drug and alcohol 

screenings, attend treatment or counseling as recommended by probation, pay 

restitution of $65.65, and avoid any contact with Ms. Gray. Mr. Knipe now appeals 

his conviction.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6

II.

{¶12} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Knipe challenges his domestic 

violence conviction, asserting that it ran counter to the manifest weight of the 

evidence. Specifically, he claims the state failed to credibly establish that he caused 

physical harm to Ms. Gray.

{¶13} When this court considers a manifest weight challenge, we sit as the

“thirteenth juror.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 388, 678 N.E.2d 541

(1997). “[W]e review the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the entire record.” 

State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-4108, 201 N.E.3d 482, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.), citing Thompkins

at 388. We will not reverse the conviction unless “the trial court ‘ “clearly lost its way

and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed

and a new trial ordered.” ’ ” Id., quoting Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin,

20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). Reversing a conviction as

against the manifest weight of the evidence should “be exercised only in the

exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Martin,

at paragraph three of the syllabus.

{¶14} Mr. Knipe was convicted of domestic violence pursuant to R.C.

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

physical harm to a family or household member.” He does not contest the fact that

Ms. Gray was a family or household member. Instead, he attacks the evidence that the

state advanced to show that he caused or attempted to cause her physical harm.

{¶15} Physical harm is statutorily defined as “any injury, illness, or other

physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(3). 

Ohio courts have not interpreted physical harm to require a visible injury. See, e.g.,
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

7

State v. Chapman, 5th Dist. Stark No. 12CA118, 2013-Ohio-2732, ¶ 21 (holding there

was physical harm even though the victim did not sustain any visible physical injury);

State v. Boldin, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2007-G-2808, 2008-Ohio-6408, ¶ 39-40

(same). And this court has previously held that testimony that the defendant grabbed

the victim’s face and caused the victim pain was sufficient to establish physical injury. 

See State v. Daniels, 2018-Ohio-1701, 111 N.E.3d 708, ¶ 36 (1st Dist.).

{¶16} Here, Ms. Gray testified that Mr. Knipe choked her, grabbed her, held

her down, and slammed her head into a door frame. Like the defendant in Daniels,

she testified that these actions caused her pain. And further, the trial court found her

testimony to be “compelling,” noting that while some of her actions may have been

inconsistent, “suggest[ing] that a victim is to behave in only one way is, in fact, not

what we find through training and experience.” 

{¶17} While Mr. Knipe highlights some inconsistencies in Ms. Gray’s

testimony (specifically regarding her confrontation regarding the content on his phone

and her collecting her belongings rather than immediately trying to flee), her

testimony largely aligned with the 911 and body-camera footage. Ms. Gray explained

at trial that she was suffering a panic attack (caused by the stress of the evening’s

events) as she was speaking with the responding officers. And when there is some

contradictory evidence presented at trial, a verdict is not against the manifest weight

of the evidence simply “ ‘ “because the finder of fact chose to believe the State’s

[evidence].” ’ ” State v. Cook, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-230235, 2024-Ohio-1664, ¶

39, quoting State v. Green, 2023-Ohio-4360, 231 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 136 (3d Dist.), quoting

State v. Martinez, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 12CA0054, 2013-Ohio-3189, ¶ 16.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

8

{¶18} Although the defense raises some concerns about Ms. Gray’s

credibility, viewing this record through a manifest weight lens, we cannot conclude

that the trial court clearly lost its way or created a manifest miscarriage of justice in 

finding Mr. Knipe guilty of domestic violence. The trial court’s credibility finding 

comports with the weight of evidence in the record. Accordingly, based on these facts,

Mr. Knipe’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

* * *

{¶19} In light of the foregoing analysis, we overrule Mr. Knipe’s assignment of 

error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

CROUSE and WINKLER, JJ., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.