[Cite as State v. January , 2021-Ohio-3364.]



### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. KORKOR JANUARY, Defendant-Appellant. :

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO. C-200333 TRIAL NO. 19CRB-24402

O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed Date of Judgment Entry on A ppeal: September 24, 2021

Andrew W. Garth , City Solicitor, William T. Horsley , Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Jon Vogt , 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 B OCK , Judge.



### {¶1} Defendant-appellant Korkor January appeals his criminal-damaging conviction, asserting that the conviction wa s contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. Facts and Procedure 

### {¶2} DeJuan McClure testified that he witnessed January approach McClure’s vehicle holding an object, slash the tire on the front driver’s side of McClure’s vehicle, “duck[] into the bushes,” and run down the street. McClure parks his vehicle “right along the side” of his house. The only thing that separates his vehicle from his house is the walkway that goes down the entire length of his house. McClure further testified that he saw January’s face and that he knows January’s body language, structure, and build. McClure stated that he had been living next door to January since 2016. 

### {¶3} Officer Kevin Martin testified that he interviewed McClure, who told
him that he saw from his kitchen window Ja nuary slash the tire. Martin also testified that the clothing that the person in McClure’s surveillance video was wearing “looked pretty much like” what January was wearing on the day of arrest. 

### {¶4} On cross-examination, Martin testif ied that McClure had told him that he witnessed January puncture the tire but that January denied puncturing the tire. January asked McClure whether the person in the video was wearing a “nondescript, gray sweatshirt.” Martin responded, “I would say that it was–yeah, it wasn’t a unique, as far as I can remember, sweatshirt.” 

### {¶5} January played the body-worn camera (“BWC”) footage recorded by Martin’s partner and asked if January appear ed to be wearing a gray hoodie. MartinOHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3 responded that, from the video, it looked li ke “some kind of hoodie,” that “it looks like he has his hood up,” and that “it could have been a sweatshirt with a hood.” Martin agreed that “[a]s far as [he could] recall,” the security footage showed a plain gray hoodie with the hood up. Next, Janu ary played the portion of the BWC that showed January’s attire, which Mart in agreed did not have a hood. 

### {¶6} The trial court stated that while it found it difficult to determine whether the person in the surveillance video was wearing a hoodie, a sweater, or a hat and a sweater, taking the testim ony and the surveillance video into consideration, it determined that the stat e had proven its case. It found January guilty of criminal damagi ng. January appealed.

II. Assignment of Error 

### {¶7} In his sole assignment of error, January argues that the trial court erred in finding him guilty because it was contrary to the manifest weight of the
evidence. 

### {¶8} In reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, appellate courts act as a thirteenth juror. State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). This court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. State v. Buttram , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190034, 2020-Ohio-2709, ¶ 24. “When evidence is susceptible to more than one construction, a reviewing court must give it the interpretation that is consistent with the judgment.” In re J.C., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180493, 2019- Ohio-4027, ¶ 20.OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4 

### {¶9} Reversing a conviction and granting a new trial should only be done in “exceptional cases in which the evidence weighs heavily against the

conviction.” Id. “The trier of fact is in the best po sition to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence presented.” State v. Carson , 1st
Dist. Hamilton No. C-180 336, 2019-Ohio-4550, ¶ 16. 

### {¶10} Under R.C. 2909.06, the state had to prove that January “knowingly, by any means” or “recklessly, by any means” of a dangerous agency or substance caused or created “a substantial risk of physical harm to any property of another without the other person’s consent.” 

### {¶11} McClure testified that he saw Januar y run up to his vehicle, puncture the tire, and run away and that he did not give January consent to do so. 

### {¶12} The surveillance footage is only five-seconds long and is in black and white. It shows a person running to the vehicle while crouched down, stabbing the tire, and then running off. The vehicle is situated under a security light that was shining from the house; however, the person’s headwear casts a shadow over his or her face. Examining the video closely, it is clear that the person was wearing a gray sweater with a hat–not a hoodie as asserted by January. Upon arrest, January was wearing a gray sweater. 

### {¶13} McClure’s identification of January has weight because he had been January’s next-door neighbor for more than three years. McClure testified that he saw January’s face and that the person was of the same height and build as January. 

### {¶14} The trial court is in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and evidence before it. It could have believed all, some, or none of the testimony. Considering all of the evidence in the record, we find that the trial courtOHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5 did not lose its way or create a manifest injustice. January’s sole assignment of error
is overruled.

III. Conclusion January’s conviction was based upon cred ible evidence. The court did not lose its way in finding January guilty of crimin al damaging. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. Judgment affirmed.

B ERGERON , P.J., and C ROUSE , J., concur. Please note: The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion