[Cite as State v. Tingley, 2016-Ohio-8528.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 OTTAWA COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. OT-16-003 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. CRB 1500403 A 

v. 

Jeremy G. Tingley DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: December 30, 2016 

* * * * * 

 Mark E. Mulligan, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

 David R. Boldt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

 Amanda A. Krzystan, for appellant. 

* * * * * 

SINGER, J. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Jeremy Tingley, appeals the January 14, 2016 judgment of the 

Ottawa County Municipal Court convicting him of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 

2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. Finding no error on record, we affirm. 
2.

Assignments of Error 

{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth the following assignments of error: 

 I. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

WAS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

 II. THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE TESTIMONY OF 

THE ALLEGED VICTIM CREDIBLE WITHOUT CORROBORATING 

EVIDENCE. 

Background Facts 

{¶ 3} On May 12, 2015, appellant became upset with his wife (the victim) for a 

text message she had sent to her cousin (the witness). The message allegedly revealed 

the wife’s past or current infidelity, and the couple bickered and fought throughout the 

day. 

{¶ 4} Appellant decided he wanted to leave the house. He began searching for 

keys and money. The victim testified she was the only one with access to their money. 

She stated appellant repeatedly demanded the keys and money, and that she refused to 

give appellant all of the money but maintained she did not know the whereabouts of his 

keys. She stated she wanted to keep some of the money for herself and children, and that 

appellant grew more aggressive in his demands. 

{¶ 5} During the altercation, the victim was live streaming video conference with 

the witness. The victim stated she did this for protection because she “felt [appellant] 

was going to get even more aggressive” and “wanted a witness.” 
3.

{¶ 6} The witness testified about her observations. She confirmed that the victim 

had not been the aggressor, that appellant destroyed the house in his search, and that the 

victim said “don’t head-butt me” at a moment when the screen went blank. 

{¶ 7} Although the victim disagreed with the witness’s timeline, the victim also 

asserted appellant not only head-butted her, but also gave her a bear-hug and attempted to 

grab her drainage tube in efforts to injure her further. 

{¶ 8} After the altercation became physical, appellant left the house and called 

police. He did not travel far, took the couple’s 14-year-old son with him, and returned in 

time to meet the authorities. The victim stated she called the sheriff but not 911, and the 

witness testified that the victim requested a call be placed to the police while they were 

video conferencing. However, the record supported appellant was the sole caller that 

evening. 

{¶ 9} The couple’s minor son also testified to what he observed. He stated he 

heard the commotion throughout the day, and that he knew his father was angry over his 

mother’s alleged infidelity. He did, however, imply he believed his mother was acting 

antagonistically and that he observed no bruises or other signs of physical abuse on her 

that day. 

{¶ 10} Mother’s testimony confirmed her son was not happy with her actions, and 

that she may not have had any signs of the abuse she suffered from that day. 

{¶ 11} While police were at the residence responding, appellant returned and was 

arrested for domestic violence. The arresting officer testified that he did not see signs of 
4.

physical abuse on the victim, but he did confirm that the house was in disarray and that 

his investigation led to appellant being arrested for domestic violence. 

{¶ 12} Appellant was charged for violating R.C. 2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of 

the first degree. Appellant proceeded to bench trial and was found guilty. He was 

sentenced to 180 days incarceration, 150 of which were suspended, and a two-year 

probation sanction. The judgment was journalized January 14, 2016, and timely notice of 

appeal was filed February 1, 2016. It is from this judgment appellant now appeals. 

Assignment of Error No. 1 

{¶ 13} In the first assignment of error, appellant argues the only supporting 

evidence for his conviction was self-serving statements from the victim. Appellee 

contends the conviction is amply supported by the record. 

{¶ 14} The standard of review for manifest weight is the same in a criminal case 

as in a civil case, and an appellate court’s function is to determine whether the greater 

amount of credible evidence supports the conviction. See Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio 

St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 12, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio 

St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). The appellate court, as if the “thirteenth juror” 

must review the record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it, 

consider the witnesses’ credibility and decide, in resolving any conflicts in the evidence, 

whether 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. Prescott, 

190 Ohio App.3d 702, 2010-Ohio-6048, 943 N.E.2d 1092, ¶ 48 (6th Dist.). 
5.

{¶ 15} R.C. 2919.25(A) provides that “[n]o person shall knowingly cause or 

attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member.” 

{¶ 16} R.C. 2901.22(B) states “[a] person acts knowingly, regardless of his 

purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will 

probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the 

person is aware that such circumstances probably exist.” 

{¶ 17} Here, the victim was married to and residing with appellant. The victim 

testified that appellant head-butted her, bear hugged her, and attempted to rip a drainage 

tube out of her stomach. She said the tube was held in her body by stitches and that she 

knew appellant intended to inflict harm when he pulled on it because he said, “I am going 

to pull the mother fucker out. I hate you so much.” 

{¶ 18} The victim’s cousin also testified to hearing an excited utterance from the 

victim as the victim was head-butted by appellant. The witness said she heard, “no, you 

are not getting my phone,” and then, “don’t head-butt me.” The witness claimed this 

occurred while she was observing the couple’s commotion by way of video conference. 

{¶ 19} Lastly, the son’s and officer’s testimony corroborated the date of the 

incident, as well as the condition of the home. The officer also implied there was 

sufficient cause to arrest appellant for domestic violence based on his investigation. 

{¶ 20} Accordingly, we hold the greater amount of credible evidence supports 

appellant’s conviction and the first assignment of error is not well-taken. 
6.

Assignment of Error No. 2 

{¶ 21} In the second assignment of error, appellant argues the victim’s testimony 

was not sufficiently credible to support his conviction absent corroborating evidence. 

Appellee contends there was corroborating evidence on record and that the court 

nonetheless did not err in finding the victim’s testimony credible. 

{¶ 22} Determinations of a witness’s credibility is a function of the trier of fact 

that is given substantial deference on review. See State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 

227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of syllabus. “The appellate court must accept the 

trial court’s findings of fact provided that they are supported by competent, credible 

evidence.” State v. Gregg, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-06-030, 2007-Ohio-4611, ¶ 8. 

{¶ 23} Here, although the witness and victim had inconsistencies in their 

testimony and timelines, we cannot say the court erred in finding the victim’s testimony 

credible, as this credibility determination must be given due deference. 

{¶ 24} Accordingly, appellant’s second assignment of error is not well-taken. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 25} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Ottawa County Municipal 

Court is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 

24. 

Judgment affirmed. 
7.

 State v. Tingley 

 C.A. No. OT-16-003 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Arlene Singer, J. 

_______________________________ 

Thomas J. Osowik, J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE