[Cite as State v. Courson, 2023-Ohio-4264.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ASHTABULA COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- vs -

CHRISTOPHER P. COURSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NO. 2023-A-0010

Criminal Appeal from the

County Court, Eastern District

Trial Court No. 2022 CRB 00227 E

O P I N I O N

Decided: November 27, 2023

Judgment: Affirmed

Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Christopher R. Fortunato, 

Assistant Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For PlaintiffAppellee).

Eric D. Hall, P.O. Box 232, Medina, OH 44258 (For Defendant-Appellant).

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant, Christopher Courson, appeals his convictions of three counts of 

Cruelty to Animals, second-degree misdemeanors in violation of R.C. 959.13(A)(1). For 

the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court, Eastern 

District.

{¶2} Appellant was indicted on three counts of Cruelty to Animals. On December 

12, 2022, the Ashtabula County Court, Eastern District held a bench trial. The court found 

Appellant guilty on all counts. 

{¶3} The following facts were testified to at trial:
2

Case No. 2023-A-0010

{¶4} In February 2022, Appellant’s girlfriend, Alyssa, had contacted a mutual 

friend, Casey Colby, “to bring medication for a horse that was down on the ground.” When 

Ms. Colby arrived, “there was a horse laying in the driveway. Um, he wasn't getting up. 

He wasn't really moving. We tried to use a rope to flip him over to try to get him to get 

up. [Appellant] and Alyssa helped me and we couldn't get him to flip over, so we gave 

him the medicine and it didn't really help him at all.” Ms. Colby saw that there were three 

horses, who were all very “skinny” and “thin * * * you could see their ribs.” Ms. Colby did 

not see any “hay in the barn, and, * * * had asked them to bring some hay or bedding or 

something to help, like, prop him up to give him some footing, and [Appellant] said he 

didn't have any.” Ms. Colby then called her veterinarian, Dr. Steve Wales, to see the 

horses.

{¶5} Dr. Wales described what he saw when he arrived: 

It was pretty brutal; probably one of the worst scenes I've seen in my 

22 years. The horse was down at the end of the driveway, um, 

covered in a blanket, but it was banging its head against the cement. 

Um, I took the blanket out to evaluate the situation; um, extremely 

emaciated, skinny, all kinds of lost weight. Um, I didn't really assess 

the situation much. The horse was in some serious pain. His gum 

color was pale. Um, he was pretty much close to death, um, and just 

to put him out of his -- his pain and misery, I euthanized him.

Dr. Wales stated that he found the horses in a condition that “just doesn't happen 

overnight. This is lack of care, probably, that's been going on.” On a body condition score 

“based on a scale of 1 to 9 -- 9 being fat and overweight, 1 being, you know, I guess all 

skin and bones,” Dr. Wales scored the first horse he saw as 2. He scored the other two 

horses as 3. Dr. Wales said that there was barely any food on the property for the horses. 

Appellant had shown Dr. Wales half a bin of grain and indicated that there was some 
3

Case No. 2023-A-0010

more inside the house or on the porch. Dr. Wales then finished his evaluation and 

contacted the humane society to report the horses’ conditions.

{¶6} Sergeant Brian Sterrick had arrived at Appellant’s property on February 16, 

2022 to “follow up” on a complaint from Dr. Wales. Sgt. Sterrick met with Appellant, and 

asked if he could see the remaining horses. Sgt. Sterrick noted that “you could see the 

ribs on the horses” and “they had an emaciated appearance.” Appellant had told Sgt. 

Sterrick that he believed the horses became sick from mold on the hay he had been 

feeding them. Sgt. Sterrick charged Appellant with three counts of Cruelty to Animals. 

While Sgt. Sterrick was at the property, the county “dog warden” contacted Kelly Williams 

to take possession of the remaining horses. Ms. Williams was a local resident who was 

known for “taking in horses or being a very reputable horse person.” Ms. Williams 

described the horses as “very thin” like they had not been eating. After taking the horses 

to her farm, Ms. Williams provided them with “basic care, food, water,” causing them to 

both gain weight.

{¶7} Appellant testified that he “had a monthly order [for feed] from Tractor 

Supply that would come in. We'd get five bags of Omolene; five bags of, ah, Pro Force 

Senior; and, ah, Hoof and Mane; Mare Magic; ah, treats; whatever else we needed.” He 

also provided the court with receipts for the grain and hay that he had purchased. 

However, the most recent receipt Appellant had provided showed that he last bought feed 

on May 7, 2021 – approximately nine months prior to the instant incident. 

{¶8} On January 30, 2023, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 90 days in jail 

on each count, a total of $300.00 in fines, and five years of community control.
4

Case No. 2023-A-0010

{¶9} Appellant timely appeals and raises two assignments of error which we will 

address together:

[1]: “The evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s verdicts of guilty as 

to Cruelty to Animals.”

[2]: “Appellant’s convictions as to Cruelty to Animals was against the manifest 

weight of the evidence.”

{¶10} “‘Sufficiency’ is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to 

determine whether the case may go to the [factfinder] or whether the evidence is legally 

sufficient to support the [factfinder's] verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Thompkins, 78 

Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), citing Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed.1990) 

1433. The appellate court's standard of review for sufficiency of evidence is to determine, 

after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, whether a rational 

trier of fact could find 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} When evaluating the weight of the evidence, we review whether the 

inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one 

side of the issue rather than the other indicated clearly that the party having the burden 

of proof was entitled to a verdict in its favor, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, 

the greater amount of credible evidence sustained the issue which is to be established 

before them. “Weight is not a question of mathematics but depends on its effect in

inducing belief.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). 
5

Case No. 2023-A-0010

Whereas sufficiency relates to the evidence’s adequacy, weight of the evidence relates 

to the evidence’s persuasiveness. Id. 

{¶12} The trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the 

credibility of the witnesses. State v. Landingham, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-103, 2021-

Ohio-4258, ¶ 22, quoting State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61, 67, 197 N.E.2d 548 (1964). The 

trier of fact may believe or disbelieve any witness in whole or in part, considering the 

demeanor of the witness and the manner in which a witness testifies, the interest, if any, 

of the outcome of the case and the connection with the prosecution or the defendant. Id., 

quoting Antil at 67. This court, engaging in the limited weighing of the evidence introduced 

at trial, is deferential to the weight and factual findings made by the factfinder. State v. 

Brown, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2002-T-0077, 2003-Ohio-7183, ¶ 52, citing Thompkins at 

390 and State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph two of 

the syllabus. The reviewing court “determines whether * * * the [factfinder] clearly lost its 

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

reversed and a new trial ordered. The discretionary power to grant a new trial should be 

exercised 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).

{¶13} A finding that a judgment is supported by the manifest weight of the 

evidence necessarily means the judgment is supported by sufficient evidence. State v. 

Arcaro, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2012-A-0028, 2013-Ohio-1842, ¶ 32.

{¶14} We begin by analyzing whether it was against the manifest weight of the 

evidence for the court to find Appellant guilty of violating R.C. 959.13(A)(1), Cruelty to 

Animals.
6

Case No. 2023-A-0010

{¶15} R.C. 959.13(A)(1) provides: “No person shall [t]orture an animal, deprive 

one of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beat, needlessly mutilate or kill, or 

impound or confine an animal without supplying it during such confinement with a 

sufficient quantity of good wholesome food and water.”

{¶16} Does the greater weight of the credible evidence presented at trial support 

Appellant's convictions under R.C. 959.13(A)(1)? The testimony offered at trial supports 

the conclusion that the three horses were deprived of necessary sustenance and confined 

without a sufficient quantity of food. The testimony demonstrated that the horses were 

emaciated and so “thin” that one could see their rib cages. Dr. Wales euthanized one 

because, in his opinion, the horse was “pretty much close to death.” None of the 

witnesses saw a sufficient amount of grain or hay to feed the horses. Dr. Wales testified 

that the horses’ conditions did not occur over night, but rather had developed over time –

the likely reason being a “lack of care.” Appellant testified that he regularly fed the horses 

and provided receipts of his grain and hay purchases. Yet, he did not offer any evidence 

showing he purchased feed after May 2022. A reasonable trier of fact could conclude, 

based on the evidence presented at trial, that Appellant had deprived the horses of 

necessary sustenance or confined them without supplying them with a sufficient quantity 

of food. Upon review, this is not the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs 

heavily against the conviction.

{¶17} Because Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the 

evidence, there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions. 

{¶18} Appellant’s assignments of error are without merit.
7

Case No. 2023-A-0010

{¶19} The judgment of the Ashtabula County Court, Eastern District, is affirmed. 

MATT LYNCH, J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.