[Cite as State v. Henderson, 2018-Ohio-4550.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

ALLEN COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-18-30 

 v. 

JENNIFER A. HENDERSON, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Lima Municipal Court 

Trial Court No. 18CRB00344 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: November 13, 2018 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Carroll R. Creighton for Appellant 

 Anthony M. DiPietro for Appellee 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-2- 

PRESTON, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jennifer A. Henderson (“Henderson”), appeals 

the May 14, 2018 judgment entry of conviction and sentence of the Lima Municipal 

Court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

{¶2} This case arises from a December 16, 2017 incident in which 

Henderson allegedly struck Brooke Jamison (“Jamison”) twice in the face at a 

restaurant in Lima, Ohio. (May 8, 2018 Tr. at 8-14). (See Doc. No. 2). On February 

8, 2018, a complaint was filed in the Lima Municipal Court charging Henderson 

with assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a first-degree misdemeanor. (Doc. No. 

3). On February 26, 2018, Henderson appeared for arraignment and entered a plea 

of not guilty. (Doc. No. 6). 

{¶3} Following a bench trial on May 8, 2018, the trial court found Henderson 

guilty of assault. (Doc. No. 11). The trial court fined Henderson $500 and 

sentenced her to 30 days in jail with 20 days suspended on condition that she have 

no contact with Jamison for two years and that she commit no similar offenses for 

two years. (Id.). The remaining 10 days in jail were suspended on the condition 

that Henderson complete 30 hours of community service prior to August 8, 2018. 

(Id.). (See Doc. No. 12). On May 14, 2018, the trial court filed its judgment entry 

of conviction and sentence. (Doc. No. 11). 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-3- 

{¶4} Henderson filed her notice of appeal on June 1, 2018. (Doc. No. 13). 

She raises one assignment of error. 

Assignment of Error 

Jennifer Henderson’s conviction should be overturned because it 

is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶5} In her assignment of error, Henderson argues that her assault conviction 

is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, Henderson argues that 

the trial court clearly lost its way in concluding that she assaulted Jamison because 

Jamison testified that she had not met Henderson prior to the night of the alleged 

incident, Jamison identified Henderson based on a single photo, rather than a lineup, 

Henderson had five witnesses testify that “they did not see [Henderson] strike 

[Jamison] or even approach her,” and the trial court stated that “there was no 

evidence of anyone else striking the victim, despite all of [Henderson’s] witnesses 

testifying that [she] did not strike [Jamison].” (Appellant’s Brief at 7). 

{¶6} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of 

the evidence, a reviewing court must examine the entire record, “‘weigh[ ] the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider[ ] the credibility of witnesses 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. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 

387 (1997), quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). A 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-4- 

reviewing court must, however, allow the trier of fact appropriate discretion on 

matters relating to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. 

State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). When applying the manifestweight standard, “[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily 

against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s 

judgment.” State v. Haller, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-11-34, 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9, 

quoting State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119. 

{¶7} Henderson was convicted of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A). 

R.C. 2903.13(A) provides, in relevant part: “No person shall knowingly cause or 

attempt to cause physical harm to another * * *.” “‘Physical harm,’ as defined by 

R.C. 2901.01(A)(3), ‘means any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, 

regardless of its gravity or duration.’” State v. Valladares, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-17-

49, 2018-Ohio-1250, ¶ 19, quoting R.C. 2901.01(A)(3). “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.” R.C. 2901.22 

(B). “When determining whether a defendant acted knowingly, his state of mind 

must be determined from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the alleged 

crime.” Valladares at ¶ 20, citing State v. Ingram, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP1124, 2012-Ohio-4075, ¶ 22. Circumstantial evidence is frequently used to 

establish culpable mental states. Id., citing Ingram at ¶ 22. 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-5- 

{¶8} Henderson does not dispute the evidence concerning the underlying 

elements of the assault offense of which she was convicted; rather, she disputes the 

issue of identity as to the conviction. See State v. Missler, 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-

14-06, 2015-Ohio-1076, ¶ 13. As such, we will address only the identity element 

of the offense. Id., citing State v. Carter, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25447, 2013-

Ohio-3754, ¶ 9-12. “‘It is well settled that in order to support a conviction, the 

evidence must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the defendant as 

the person who actually committed the crime at issue.’” Id., quoting State v. 

Johnson, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 13 JE 5, 2014-Ohio-1226, ¶ 27, citing State v. 

Collins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98350, 2013-Ohio-488, ¶ 19 and State v. Lawwill, 

12th Dist. Butler No. CA2007-01-014, 2008-Ohio-3592, ¶ 11. ‘“[D]irect or 

circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish the identity of the accused as the 

person who committed the crime.’” Collins at ¶ 19, quoting Lawwill at ¶ 11. 

{¶9} At trial, the State first offered the testimony of Jamison. (May 8, 2018 

Tr. at 8). Jamison testified that she was at Fat Jack’s Pizza on Spencerville Road in 

Lima, Ohio on December 16, 2017 talking with a group of approximately four 

individuals in the area between the restaurant seating and the bar when Henderson 

approached her group and asked Jamison for her name. (Id. at 8-12). Jamison stated 

that she responded with her first name and continued her conversation with the other 

individuals in the group. (Id. at 12). She testified that Henderson again interrupted 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-6- 

the group’s conversation and asked Jamison for her last name. (Id.). Jamison then 

testified that once she gave Henderson her last name, Henderson said “that’s what I 

thought” and struck her. (Id.). 

{¶10} Following the first strike, Jamison asked, “What did you do that for?” 

(Id.). Jamison testified that Henderson replied, “That’s for my brother, bitch” and 

struck Jamison a second time. (Id.). Jamison stated that Henderson was then 

escorted out of the building by her husband. (Id. at 13). Jamison testified that before 

and during the physical confrontation, there was approximately two feet between 

her and Henderson and that Henderson was standing directly in front of Jamison. 

(Id. at 14). 

{¶11} Jamison testified that one of her friends identified Henderson shortly 

after the physical confrontation and informed Jamison that Henderson was the sister 

of Kevin Jones (“Jones”). (Id. at 13). Jones was once married to one of Jamison’s 

best friends and although Jamison and Jones had once been friendly, they no longer 

spoke because Jamison did not “approve of what [Jones] did to * * * his ex-wife.” 

(Id.). 

{¶12} The State then introduced State’s Exhibit A, a video of the security 

footage from Fat Jack’s Pizza on December 16, 2017. (Id. at 15-17). State’s Exhibit 

A depicts Jamison being struck in the face twice by a woman who was immediately 

escorted away by a man with an irregular gait. (State’s Ex. A). Jamison identified 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-7- 

herself and Henderson in the video and also stated that it was Henderson who was 

depicted striking her. (May 8, 2018 Tr. at 15-17). Jamison testified that she was 

familiar with Henderson’s husband, Joel Henderson (“Joel”), and identified Joel on 

the security footage as the person escorting Henderson out of the restaurant 

immediately following the altercation. (Id. at 16-18). In addition, Jamison 

identified Henderson twice in open court as the individual who struck her. (Id. at 

10-12, 19). On cross-examination, Jamison stated that she did not personally know 

Henderson and had never seen her before the night of the incident. (Id. at 23-24). 

On re-direct examination, Jamison stated that she initially identified Henderson as 

“Jennifer Jones,” Henderson’s maiden name. (Id. at 26). 

{¶13} Next, Patrolman Justin Halker (“Patrolman Halker”), a patrolman for 

the City of Lima Police Department, testified that on December 20, 2017, several 

days after the incident, he went to the restaurant and viewed the security footage 

from the night of the incident. (Id. at 27-28). Patrolman Halker stated that, due to 

a technical issue with the restaurant’s security system, he was unable to get the 

original video directly from the security system, but was able to obtain a copy of the 

the video using his camera to record the security footage from the computer screen. 

(Id. at 29). Patrolman Halker viewed State’s Exhibit A and testified that it was a 

fair and accurate representation of the security footage he viewed at the restaurant 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-8- 

on December 20, 2017 and that it had not been changed or altered in any way. (Id.

at 29-31). 

{¶14} Patrolman Halker testified that in addition to viewing and preserving 

the security video from the restaurant, he continued his investigation by identifying 

Henderson through her Facebook page and the LEADS database. (Id. at 32). 

Patrolman Halker stated that he printed a BMV photo of Henderson and provided 

the photo to Jamison, who identified the individual in the photo as the person who 

struck her. (Id. at 32-33). On cross-examination, Patrolman Halker conceded that 

it may have been better procedure to provide Jamison with a photo lineup, but that 

a photo lineup was not necessary because he received a separate phone call from 

Jamison informing him that she knew her assailant and her assailant’s current name 

is “Jennifer Henderson” and not “Jennifer Jones.” (Id. at 34). Patrolman Halker 

testified that he attempted to contact Henderson several times via telephone and by 

visiting the residence listed on her BMV registration and driver’s license, but was 

unsuccessful. (Id. at 34-35). 

{¶15} Finally, Patrolman Benjamin Kuney (“Patrolman Kuney”), a 

patrolman for the City of Lima Police Department, testified that he was dispatched 

to the Fat Jack’s Pizza on Spencerville Road in Lima, Ohio on December 16, 2017 

to investigate a complaint of assault. (Id. at 36-37). He stated that when he arrived 

at the restaurant, the assailant was gone but he made contact with Jamison and 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-9- 

observed and photographed a bump above her right eye. (Id. at 37-38). Patrolman 

Kuney testified that Jamison identified her assailant as “Jenny Jones.” (Id. at 38). 

{¶16} Thereafter, the State moved to admit State’s Exhibit A and rested. (Id.

at 39). State’s Exhibit A was admitted without objection. (Id.). 

{¶17} As her first witness, Henderson offered the testimony of Jones, her 

brother, who testified that he was at the restaurant on December 16, 2017 with a 

group of 20 to 25 people, including Henderson, following a family funeral. (Id. at 

39-41). Jones testified that he left the restaurant after Henderson and did not observe 

an altercation or Henderson being escorted from the bar. (Id. at 42-43). Jones 

testified that he was sitting approximately 25-30 feet from the bar section and would 

have noticed an altercation taking place. (Id. at 44-45). He stated that Henderson 

did not tell him about any altercation she was involved in but said “[Jamison] was 

running her mouth about something and that was it and they left.” (Id. at 45). 

{¶18} Next, Anthony Streeter (“Streeter”) testified that he saw Henderson at 

the restaurant on December 16, 2017, but he did not observe Henderson in the bar 

area and did not witness any altercation. (Id. at 46-49). On cross-examination, 

Streeter testified that he has known Henderson and her husband, Joel, for 

approximately ten years and that Joel walks with a clubfoot. (Id. at 49-50). 

{¶19} Christine Sheffield (“Sheffield”), Jones’s girlfriend, testified that she 

was at the restaurant on December 16, 2017 with a group of people, including 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-10- 

Henderson. (Id. at 51). Although she testified that she witnessed Henderson visiting 

friends in the bar area of the restaurant and that she saw Henderson being escorted 

out of the establishment by Joel, she denied observing an altercation. (Id. at 52-54). 

{¶20} Jarrah Cole (“Cole”) testified that she was at the restaurant on 

December 16, 2017 with a group of people, including Henderson. (Id. at 54-55). 

Cole stated that she spoke to Henderson, but denied seeing her involved in an 

altercation. (Id. at 55-56). Cole testified that she observed Henderson speaking 

with Jamison, but did not know what they were talking about and did not see a 

physical altercation. (Id. at 57-58). Cole described the conversation as “not at all” 

heated and stated that when she walked past the pair, they were “laughing and 

talking” and therefore Cole “figured it was just complete benign conversation.” (Id.

at 57-58). 

{¶21} Finally, Joel testified that he was at the restaurant on December 16, 

2017 “eating and fellowshipping with family,” including Henderson. (Id. at 60). 

He denied seeing Henderson involved in an altercation with Jamison and stated that 

he pulled his wife away from Jamison because Jamison was cussing at Henderson 

and calling her “the ‘B’ word.” (Id.). Joel testified that when asked what happened, 

Henderson informed him that Jamison spit on her. (Id.). Joel denied seeing any 

physical altercation and specifically denied witnessing Henderson hit Jamison. (Id.

at 60-61). Joel testified that he and Henderson left the bar following the incident. 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-11- 

(Id. at 61). On cross-examination, Joel stated that he has a clubfoot that causes him 

issues with walking and prevents him from having a straight gait. (Id.). 

{¶22} Thereafter, Henderson rested without offering any exhibits. (Id. at 

62). The State did not present any additional witnesses on rebuttal. (Id.). 

{¶23} Henderson argues that her conviction is against the manifest weight of 

the evidence because Jamison testified that she never met Henderson before the 

night of the incident and because Patrolman Halker showed Jamison a single photo 

of Henderson, rather than a lineup. (Appellant’s Brief at 7). In addition, Henderson 

argues that she presented five witnesses who testified that “they did not see 

[Henderson] strike [Jamison] or even approach her” and that the trial court did not 

“specifically address any credibility issues with [Henderson’s] witnesses.” (Id.). 

Finally, Henderson argues that the trial court stated in its decision that there was no 

evidence of anyone other than Henderson striking the victim, despite Henderson 

calling witnesses who testified that Henderson did not strike Jamison. (Id.). 

{¶24} However, after weighing the evidence and evaluating the credibility 

of the witnesses, with appropriate deference to the trier of fact’s credibility 

determination, we cannot conclude that the trier of fact clearly lost its way and 

created a manifest injustice. Thus, we conclude that Henderson’s conviction is not 

against the manifest weight of the evidence as the evidence weighs in favor of a 

finding that Henderson was the perpetrator of the assault against Jamison. 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-12- 

{¶25} First, Henderson’s argument that her conviction is against the manifest 

weight of the evidence because Jamison testified that she had never met Henderson 

before the night of the incident is without merit. Jamison identified Henderson 

twice in open court and affirmed to the trial court that she had no doubt that 

Henderson was her assailant. (May 8, 2018 Tr. at 11, 19). Jamison testified that 

Henderson was standing directly in front of her and approximately two feet away 

from her immediately before the physical altercation. (Id. at 14). Moreover, 

Jamison and Henderson conversed prior to and following the physical altercation. 

(Id. at 10-12). As such, Jamison had a clear view of her assailant and was in the 

best position to identify Henderson as her attacker. Therefore, the fact that Jamison 

met Henderson for the first time on the night of the incident does not weigh against 

Henderson’s conviction. See State v. Prater, 71 Ohio App.3d 78, 85 (10th 

Dist.1990) (holding that Prater’s conviction was not against the weight of the 

evidence where the victim did not know Prater and therefore had “no reason or 

motive to lie” and gave a “positive and firm” identification of Prater at trial). 

{¶26} Henderson’s assertion that her conviction is against the manifest 

weight of the evidence because Patrolman Halker showed Jamison a single photo, 

rather than a photo lineup, is likewise unpersuasive. “[T]here is no general 

requirement that the defendant must be identified in photo lineups.” State v. Miller, 

11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-111, 2012-Ohio-3515, ¶ 53. Rather, “‘direct or 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-13- 

circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish the identity of the accused as the 

person who committed the crime.’” Id., quoting Lawwill, 2008-Ohio-3592, at ¶ 11, 

citing State v. Irby, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 03 MA 54, 2004-Ohio-5929, ¶ 16-21. 

Although Patrolman Halker stated on cross-examination that it “possibly could 

have” been better procedure to prepare a photo lineup, he also testified that he 

believed that a photo lineup “was not necessary” because he received a separate 

telephone call from Jamison identifying her attacker as “Jennifer Henderson” and 

stating that she knew [of] her. (May 8, 2018 Tr. at 33-34). The additional 

information received from Jamison, which corroborated Patrolman Halker’s own 

investigation into Henderson’s social media accounts and known associates, led 

Patrolman Halker to testify on cross-examination that he “100% believe[s] [he] had 

the correct person.” (Id. at 33-34). Moreover, as discussed above, Jamison also 

identified her assailant twice in open court. (Id. at 11, 19). As such, the use of the 

single photo in lieu of a photo lineup does not weigh against Henderson’s 

conviction. See State v. Brown, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 16 MA 0059, 2017-Ohio7704, ¶ 8, 30-31 (rejecting Brown’s argument that his conviction was against the 

manifest weight of the evidence where a victim who identified Brown as the 

perpetrator identified Brown from a single photo, rather than a photo lineup, and 

was familiar with Brown). 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-14- 

{¶27} Moreover, the fact that Henderson presented five witnesses who 

testified that “they did not see [Henderson] strike [Jamison] or even approach her” 

and that the trial court did not “specifically address any credibility issues with 

[Henderson’s] witnesses” does not mean that Henderson’s conviction is against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. Likewise, the fact that the trial court stated in its 

decision that there was no evidence of anyone other than Henderson striking the 

victim, despite Henderson calling witnesses who testified that Henderson did not 

strike Jamison, does not make Henderson’s conviction against the manifest weight 

of the evidence. While Henderson called five witnesses who stated that they did not 

see her strike Jamison, this fact does not make Henderson’s conviction against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. By all accounts, the restaurant was busy on the 

night of the incident, each of Henderson’s witnesses were at the establishment with 

a large group of people following a funeral event, and none of Henderson’s 

witnesses were with her for the whole evening. (May 8, 2018 Tr. at 9, 41-42, 46-

47, 51-52, 55, 59-60). Therefore, Henderson’s five witnesses were only a small 

sample of the individuals who were present at the restaurant at the time of the 

incident. 

{¶28} Moreover, of Henderson’s witnesses, two were asked if they saw any

physical confrontation at the restaurant on December 16, 2017, and both denied 

observing any confrontation, whether involving Henderson or not. (Id. at 42, 48). 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-15- 

Yet, State’s Exhibit A clearly shows that a physical confrontation occurred. (See

State’s Ex. A). In fact, two of the five witnesses admitted seeing Henderson and 

Jamison talking and interacting. (May 8, 2018 Tr. at 56-58, 60-61). 

{¶29} Furthermore, “the weight to be given the evidence and the credibility 

of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of the facts.” DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 

at paragraph one of the syllabus. “‘When examining witness credibility, “the choice 

between credible witnesses and their conflicting testimony rests solely with the 

finder of fact and an appellate court may not substitute its own judgment for that of 

the finder of fact.”’” State v. White, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-16-21, 2017-Ohio1488, ¶ 50, quoting In re N.Z., 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2010-L-023, 2010-L-035, and 

2010-L-041, 2011-Ohio-6845, ¶ 79, quoting State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 123 

(1986). “‘A fact finder is free to believe all, some, or none of the testimony of each 

witness appearing before it.’” Id., quoting In re N.Z. at ¶ 79, citing State v. Thomas, 

11th Dist. Lake No. 2004-L-176, 2005-Ohio-6570, ¶ 29. See also Missler, 2015-

Ohio-1076, at ¶ 44, quoting State v. Daley, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-13-26, 2014-

Ohio-2128, ¶ 68, quoting State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61, 67 (1964). “A verdict is 

not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the finder of fact chose to 

believe the State’s witnesses rather than the defendant’s version of the events.” 

State v. Martinez, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 12CA0054, 2013-Ohio-3189, ¶ 16, citing 

State v. Andrews, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25114, 2010-Ohio-6126, ¶ 28. As such, the 
Case No. 1-18-30 

-16- 

trial court was able to assign whatever credibility it deemed appropriate to the 

witnesses presented. Therefore, the fact that Henderson called five witnesses who 

all testified that they did not see a physical confrontation between Henderson and 

Jamison does not make the verdict against the weight of the evidence, even when 

the trial court does not “specifically address any credibility issues with 

[Henderson’s] witnesses.” 

{¶30} Therefore, having weighed the evidence and all reasonable inferences, 

and considering the credibility of the witnesses, we conclude that the trial court did 

not clearly lose its way and create such a manifest miscarriage of justice that 

Henderson’s conviction must be reversed. As the weight of the evidence supports 

the finding that Henderson is the individual who assaulted Jamison, Henderson’s 

conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶31} Accordingly, Henderson’s assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶32} 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 

ZIMMERMAN and SHAW, J.J., concur. 

/jlr