[Cite as State v. Green , 2021-Ohio-2222.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO Appellee

v. ENRIQUE D. GREEN Appellant C.A. No. 29777

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 18 02 0495

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: June 30, 2021

HENSAL, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Enrique Green appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Co urt of Common

Pleas. This Court affirms.

I. {¶2} This is the second time Mr. Green has been before this Court to appeal his convictions for felonious assault, which he received after a be nch trial. Briefly, Mr. Green was charged with two counts of fel onious assault and accompanying f irearm specifications after an

altercation with the victim wherein the victim sustained a nonl ethal gunshot wound to his shoulder. The victim testified that Mr. Green intentionally shot him afte r a verbal altercation, and Mr. Green testified that he accidentally discharged his firearm. The mat ter proceeded to a bench trial wherein the State presented evidence that supported the following narra tive, which this Court set forth in

State v. Green , 9th Dist. Summit No. 29120, 2019-Ohio-4967 (“ Green I” ):2

During the early morning hours of February 2, 2018, Green trave led to the house of his girlfriend, C.J., in Akron, Ohio. C.J.’s two young chil dren were staying with her that night. [The victim], the father of the children, was scheduled to pick up the children at 6:00 AM. After patronizing a local bar and stopping for food a t EuroGyro at approximately 3:00 AM, [the victim] decided that he would attem pt to pick up his children early and he drove to C.J.’s house. Though he attempt ed to call C.J. to let her know that he was coming, she did not answer her phone. [Th e victim] testified that it was not unusual for him to arrive early, and sometimes he would sleep there until C.J. was ready to leave for work. [The victim] parked his Ford Escape in the driveway and walked to the back of the house. [The victim] explained that there was a better chance t hat he could awake C.J. if he forcefully knocked on the back door. When he receiv ed no response, [the victim] returned to his SUV and backed out of the driveway into the street. At that time, he noticed Green walking toward his vehicle. While [the victim] acknowledged that he may have seen Green on a prior occasion, h e did not know Green personally. Green approached the driver’s side window an d asked [the victim] what he was doing. T hough [the victim] took exception to the question given that his children were i n the house, [the victim] eventua lly explained that he was there to pick up his children. Tensions between the men escalated when they began to argue abo ut who should be the first to stand down, or “pull off.” [The victim] had tw o “brick[s]” or “boulders” on the floor of the back seat [of] his SUV. [The vi ctim] explained that he saw the bricks in the middle of Exchange Stree t several days earlier and decided to remove them to prevent motoris ts from damaging their vehicle s. In the midst of his argument with Green, [the victim] stated, “[g]et the f*** o ut of my face before I crack you with this [brick].” When [the victim] grabbed a br ick, Green started walking toward his own vehicle . [The victim] then placed the b rick on the front passenger’s seat. Green opened the driver’s door of his own ve hicle, grabbed something, and then began walking back toward [the victim]. As Green approached [the victim]’s SUV, it became apparent that Green had a gun. [ The victim] testified that Green walked up to the driver’s door of [the victim’s] veh icle, where the window was open, and shot [the victim] in the shoulder. During his testimony, [the victim] explained that Green “just hauled off and shot [him.]” While [the victim] was initially unaware of where he had been shot and whether the bullet had exited his body, he heard a window in his SUV shatter at the time of t he shooting. [The victim] further maintained that he did not grab the gun or atte mpt to knock it out of Green’s hand. [The victim] “played dead” to discourage Green from shooting hi m a second time. [The victim] testified that as he played dead, his SUV was in n eutral, and his vehicle slowly rolled backward into a tree. C.J. came out of the house . Green attempted to check [the victim’s] pulse and told C.J. to call the police. [The victim] shifted3

his SUV into drive and rushed to the hospital. [The victim] te stified that he intentionally rammed his SUV into Green’s parked car as he spee ded away from the scene. Photographs taken at the hospital depicted where the bullet entered [the victim’s] body near his shoulder and then exited through his up per back. Detective Ronald Garey of the Akron Police Department testified that the glass located in the street at the scene did not appear to be a result of [the victi m] backing into the tree or ramming Green’s vehicle as he exited the scene. When [the v ictim] arrived at the hospital, he tossed the bricks into the rear compartment of his SUV prior to entering the hospital a nd seeking treatment.

Id. at ¶ 9-13. {¶3} Mr. Green testified on his own behalf, providing a different ve rsion of the events. According to him, he went outsi de after hearing the knocking at the back door to see if the victim was ok. When he did, he saw the victim backing his SUV out of the driveway. The men exchanged words as the victim was still seated in his SUV, and the victim grabbed one of the bricks in his

SUV and threatened to hit Mr. Green with it. Mr. Green assured the victim that he did not want any problems, but the victim got out of his SUV with the brick still in his hand. Mr. Green then started walking back toward his own car, intending to get in an d drive home. The victim then approached him with the brick in his hand, so Mr. Green reached for the gun he kept in his car, which was already loaded with a bu llet in the chamber. Mr. Gre en told the victim he was a CCW holder, and stepped back out of his vehicle. Mr. Green then po inted the gun at the victim’s chest and – as the victim remained facing him – started walking the v ictim back toward the victim’s SUV. The victim, who was still holding the brick, reached for Mr. Green’s gun, making contact with his arm and causing the gun to go off. Mr. Green testifie d that he did not recall pulling the trigger, and that he did n ot fire his gun on purpose. {¶4} Mr. Green testified that he immediately checked himself to see if he was shot. He

then noticed that the victim was back inside his SUV with blood on his shoulder, so he approached the victim and asked if he was ok, telling him he was a paramed ic and could help him. After4

initially not responding, the victim put his car in reverse, st ruck Mr. Green’s car with his SUV, and sped away. Mr. Green immediately called 911 and informed t he operator that his weapon discharged. {¶5} C.J. was the only other witness to some of these events. She t estified that she went outside on the front porch and saw the victim and Mr. Green sta nding outside of the victim’s SUV, which was in the street, talki ng. She testified that the victi m was holding a brick in his hand, and that she did not see anything in Mr. Green’s hands. She then w ent inside to get dressed, closed the door behind her, and heard a popping noise. C.J. did not see M r. Green fire his gun. After hearing the popping noise, she went back outside and saw the victim str ike Mr. Green’s car door with his SUV before driving away. {¶6} As detailed in Green I , Detective Ronald Garey responded to the scene. He testified that he observed glass in the street, which did not appear to b e a result of the victim striking Mr. Green’s car with his SUV, or from the victim backing his SUV in to the tree. Id. at ¶ 13. Instead,

he testified that the location of the glass in the street corre sponded with the victim’ s version of the

events insofar as the victim maintained that he was seated in h is SUV at the time he was shot, and that he heard glass break as soon as he was shot. Another dete ctive also testified, indicating that he test fired Mr. Green’s gun. T hat detective testified that t he gun had no external safety, and that it had an average trigger pull, requiring him to “purposely pul l the trigger back” with an average

amount of force in orde r to fire the gun. {¶7} The trial court found Mr. Green guilty of both counts of feloni ous assault, as well as the accompanying firearm specifications. It determined that the felonious-assault counts were allied offenses, and – consistent with the State’s election – s entenced Mr. Green for the feloniousassault count under Revise d Code Section 2903.11(A)(1). Id. at ¶ 3.5

{¶8} Mr. Green appealed his convictions in Green I , raising six assignments of error. This Court addressed the merits of two of his assignments of er ror, concluding that his convictions were supported by sufficient evide nce, but that the trial court erred by permitting Detective Garey to provide expert testimony at trial. Green I at ¶ 15, 28. Regarding the latter, this Court reviewed Detective Garey’s testimony about the significance of the glass found in the street, including his opinion that the bullet passed through the victim’s body and sh attered the rear window of the

victim’s vehicle. Id. at ¶ 23. We concluded that Detective Garey’s opinion in this regard amounted to expert testimony, and that it was highly prejudicial to Mr. Green since it corroborated the victim’s version of the events, including the victim’s testimon y that he was seated in his SUV

when Mr. Green shot him. Id. at ¶ 27-28. We then declined to address the remaining assignm ents of error on the basis that they w ere moot, and affirmed in part , reversed in part, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Id. at ¶ 30. {¶9} On remand, the trial court issued a new judgment entry, indicat ing that it “did not consider, and does not conside r, Detective Garey’s testimony as expert testimony regarding: where [the victim] was seated at the time he was shot; the bullet tra jectory; where the bullet exited [the victim’s] body; where t he bullet went after it exited [the vict im’s] body; how the glass broke; when the glass broke; the significance of the glass in the road; and , his interpretati on of events due to the location of the glass in road.” It then reaffirmed Mr. Gre en’s convictions and sentence. Mr. Green now appeals that decisi on, raising three assignments of e rror for this Court’s review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AS THE CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL.6

{¶10} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Green argues that his con victions are against the manifest weight of the evidence. He primarily argues that the victim’s testimony was unreliable, and that the victim’ s testimony coupled with the ab sence of Detective Garey’s testimony as expert testimony esta blishes that his convictions are not supported by the weight of the evidence. This Court disagrees. {¶11} When considering a cha llenge to the manifest weight of the evid ence, this Court is required to consider the entire record, “weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and de termine whether, in resolvin g conflicts in the evi dence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscar riage of justice that the conviction

must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Otten , 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). Weight of the eviden ce pertains to the greater amo unt of credible evidence produced in a trial to support one side over the other side. State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). An appellate court should only exercise its power to r everse a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence in exceptional cases. State v. Carson , 9th Dist. Summit No. 26900, 2013-Ohio-5785, ¶ 32, citing Otten at 340. {¶12} Notably, “the weight to be given the evidence and the credibili ty of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of t he facts[,]” who is “free to be lieve all, part, or none of the testimony

of each witness.” State v. DeHass , 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus; Prince

v. Jordan , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 04CA008423, 2004-Ohio-7184, ¶ 35. “This Court will not overturn the trial court’s verdict on a manifest weight of the evidence challenge only because the trier of

fact chose to believe certain w itness testimony over the testim ony of others.” State v. Clark , 9th Dist. Medina No. 18CA0093-M, 2019-Ohio-4303, ¶ 13, quoting State v. Hill , 9th Dist. Summit No. 26519, 2013-Ohio-4022, ¶ 15.7

{¶13} As Mr. Green points out in his merit brief, the testimony at tr ial varied among the

witnesses as to where the two me n were positioned when the vict im was shot. Mr. Green asserts that this is perhaps the most re levant and important issue surr ounding his convictions. He argues that C.J.’s testimony corroborated his version of the events, w hile the victim’s ver sion of the events varied, and the victim’ s testimony was otherwise not credible. {¶14} Initially, we note that C.J.’s testimony was of limited value b ecause she did not see the shooting. Her testimony corroborated Mr. Green’s testimony to the extent she testified that the victim was standing outside of his SUV with a brick in his hand 

### immediately prior to the shooting . While her testimony in that regard undermines the victim’s i nsistence that he never got out of his SUV, the fact remains that she did not see the shoot ing. C.J., therefore, could not

corroborate Mr. Green’s assertion that the victim reached for h is gun, made contact with his arm, and that he accidentally d ischarged his firearm. {¶15} More importantly, Mr. Green’s t estimony at trial differed from his prior statements to the police regarding where the men were positioned when his firearm discharged. At the scene, Mr. Green told an officer that he was pretty sure that he (Mr. Green) was in his vehicle when he shot the victim. Then, when interviewed at the police station, Mr. Green indicated that he was not sure whether he (Mr. Green) was inside or outside of his vehicl e when he shot the victim. Then, at trial, Mr. Green testified th at he was outside of his vehicl e, walking toward the victim with his gun pointed at the victim’s chest, when his firearm discharged. During cross examination, the State pointed out these inconsis tencies. On re-direct examinat ion, Mr. Green testified that he told the officer at the scene that he (Mr. Green) was in his vehicle when he shot the victim because he

was confused and scared. The tri al court, therefore, had reaso n to question Mr. Green’s version of

the events.8

{¶16} While inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, as well as C.J .’s corroboration of some of Mr. Green’s testimony, certainly affect the victim’s cr edibility, the critical issue the trial

court had to decide was whether to believe Mr. Green’s testimon y that he accidentally fired his gun, and whether the evidence supported that version of the eve nts. Much of Mr. Green’s argument on appeal centers on the victim’s behavior, including his assertion that the victim approached him in a threatening manner and moved the bricks to the trunk of his SUV after the shooting. Yet Mr. Green did not argue that he acted in self-de fense. Simply put, the trial did not have to accept the victim’s versi on of the events in its entire ty in order to find Mr. Green guilty of the charged offenses. See Prince, 2004-Ohio-7184, at ¶ 35 (noting t hat the trier of fact is “ free to believe all, part, or none of th e testimony of each witness.”). Mr. Green admitted that he retrieved a loaded gun from his car, pointed it at the victim’s chest, an d that he must have pulled the trigger. We again note that, according to t he detective who test fired t hat gun during the investigation, the detective had to “pur posely pull the trigger back” with an aver age amount of force in order to fire the gun. {¶17} A determination of whether Mr. Green fired his gun by accident hinged upon Mr. Green’s credibility, which the trial court was in the best posi tion to assess. State v. Kibble , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 20CA011630, 2020-Ohio-5560, ¶ 15 (“[T]his Cour t is mindful of the wellestablished principle that a tri er of fact enjoys the best posi tion to assess the credibility of witnesses.”). Here, the trial court chose not to believe Mr. G reen’s testimony that he accidentally fired his gun. That, by itself, does not equate to a manifest miscarriage of justice, and this Court will not substitute its credibility determination for that of t he trial court. State v. Frashuer , 9th Dist. Summit No. 24769, 2010-Ohio-634, ¶ 18 (“[T]he mere fact t hat the jury chose to disbelieve much of [the defendant’s] testimony does not equate to a manife st miscarriage of justice.”); State9

v. Morrison, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21687, 2004-Ohio-2669, ¶ 56 (“This Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of facts on the issue of wit ness credibility unless we conclude that the factfinder clearly lost its way.”). {¶18} We remain mindful of our decision in Green I wherein this Cour t determined that Detective Garey’s expert tes timony was highly prejudicial. Green I at ¶ 28. However, even without Detective Garey’s testim ony (lay or expert), including his testimony regarding the significance of the glass in the s treet or his opinion regardin g the trajectory of the bullet (and the inferences drawn therefrom), this Court cannot say that Mr. Gre en has established that this is the exceptional case where the evidence weighs heavily against his convictions. Mr. Green’s first assignment of error is overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING OR PERMITTING THE INTRODUCTION OF OFFICER DAVID WHITE’S BODY CAMERA AS STATE’S EXHIBIT 36 AS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHENTICATION AND ADMISSIBILITY UNDER EVID. R. 901 OR 902 WERE NOT SATISFIED AND, FURTHER, THE CONTENT OF THE VIDEO WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WITH NO EXCEPTION UNDER EVID.R. 803. {¶19} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Green asserts that the t rial court committed plain error by allowing an office r’s bodycam video into evidenc e when that officer did not testify at trial, and when that evidence wa s otherwise not authenticate d. He also argues that the contents of the bodycam video constituted ina dmissible hearsay. For the reasons that follow, we conclude

that Mr. Green has failed to estab lish that the trial court com mitted plain error. {¶20} “To establish plain error, a defendant must show that (1) there was an error or deviation from a legal rule, (2) the error was plain and obviou s, and (3) the error affected the

outcome of the trial.” State v. Mohamed , 151 Ohio St.3d 320. 2017-Ohio-7468, ¶ 26, citing, State

v. Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002). “As notice of plain error is to be taken with utmost caution10

and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, the deci sion of a trial court will not be reversed due to plain error unl ess the defendant has establishe d that the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different but for the alleged error.” State v. West , 9th Dist. Summit No. 27485, 2015-Ohio-2936, ¶ 46, quoting State v. Horton , 9th Dist. Summit No. 26407, 2013-Ohio-3902, ¶

50. {¶21} Here, Mr. Green asserts that the admission of the officer’s bo dycam video was “extremely prejudicial[,]” but offers no argument in support of the prejudice component of his plain-error argument. See App.R. 16(A)(7) (requiring an appe llant’s brief to contain “[a] n argument containing the contenti ons of the appellant with respe ct to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contenti ons, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies.”). In other words, he has not argued that, but for that evidence, he would not have been convicted o f the charged offenses. See West at ¶ 46. Thus, even assuming the tr ial court erre d by allowing th e officer’s bodycam video into evidence, Mr. Green has failed to establish plain error on appe al. Id. at ¶ 46-48 (holding that, even assuming the trial court erred by allowing certain testimony in to evidence, the a ppellant failed to

establish that the outcome of the trial would have been differe nt but for that evidence); see Mahoney v. Mahoney , 9th Dist. Medina No. 16CA0061-M, 2017-Ohio-7917, ¶ 9 (“It is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error on appeal .”). Accordingly, Mr. Green’s second assignment of error is overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT PERMITTED DETECTIVE GAREY’S HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL AND INCOMPETENT TESTIMONY TO BE ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE. NOTWITHSTANDING THE TRIAL COURT’S CLAIM THAT IT DID NOT CONSIDER THE TESTIMONY, IT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THE TRIAL COURT PERCEIVED DETECTIVE GAREY’S TESTIMONY TO BE PROFFERED AS11

AN EXPERT. SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH WEIGHT WAS GIVEN TO THIS IMPROPER EVIDENCE, THE CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED. {¶22} In his third assignment of error, Mr. Green argues that, despit e the trial court’s assertion that it did not rely upon Detective Garey’s testimony as expert testimony, the record affirmatively demonstrates that the trial court did, and that i t continued to do so after this Court’s remand. Mr. Green acknowledges th e case law providing that, i n a bench trial, the trial court is presumed to consider only relevant, material, and competent evi dence, but argues that this case falls within an exception to that general rule because the reco rd affirmatively demonstrates otherwise. Mr. Green argues that it is impossible to determine the weight the trial court continued to afford that testimony, and tha t this Court must remand the m atter. {¶23} In response, the State argues th at the trial court expressly st ated on remand that it did not rely on Detective Garey’s testimony as expert testimony . It argues that Mr. Green’s reliance on “[i]ndicia and inferences” in the record to support his position that the trial court considered, and continued to cons ider, Detective Garey’s testim ony as expert testimony is not sufficient, and that the trial court’s order on remand could no t have been clearer. {¶24} Initially, we note that this Cour t has already decided that suf ficient evidence existed to support Mr. Green’s convictions. Green I , 2019-Ohio-4967, at ¶ 14-16. This Court has also already decided that the trial court erred by permitting Detect ive Garey to offer an opinion “as to what transpired in this case that was ostensibly based on an in ferred understanding of where [the victim] was seated at the time of the incident, the manner in w hich the bullet entered and exited [the victim’s] body, as well as whe re the bullet went after it exited [the victim’s] body[,]” since “[n]one of th[o]se inferences were rationally based on his perc eption of the crime scene.” Id. at ¶

27. While we are mindful of the f act that the trial court on r emand stated that it never relied upon12

Detective Garey’s testimony as expert testimony, that does not alter this Court’s decision in Green

I

wherein we concluded that the trial court erred by allowing De tective Garey to provide expert testimony. Id. at ¶ 28. This Court’s focus now, however, is on whether the t rial court relied on Detective Garey’s testimony as expert testimony after this Cour t’s remand. {¶25} This Court is required to determine the merits of this appeal b y the record before us, and the arguments presented. App.R. 12(A)(1)(b). As Mr. G reen acknowledges, when considering a criminal case tried to the bench, an appellate co urt presumes that th e trial court only considered relevant, material, and competent evidence unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary. State v. Fautenberry , 72 Ohio St.3d 435, 439 (1995). Despite Mr. Green’s arguments , we cannot say that it affirmativ ely appears that the trial cour t relied upon Detective Garey’s testimony as expert testimony afte r this Court’s remand. A tri al court speaks through its journal entries, and the trial court specifically indicated that it did not. State v. Jones , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010801, 2017-Ohio-1181, ¶ 7 (“It i s axiomatic that a court speaks through its journal entries.”). {¶26} Moreover, Mr. Green’s argument presupposes that the trial court could not have found him guilty absent its consid eration of Detective Garey’s testimony as expert testimony. As explained in our resolution of Mr. Green’s second assignment of error, Mr. Green has not established that his convictions are against the manifest weigh t of the evidence even without Detective Garey’s testimony to co rroborate the victim’s version of the events. {¶27} Mr. Green is correct in that there is no way of knowing how muc h weight a trier of

fact affords certain evidence. B ut, under these facts and in l ight of the trial court’s judgment entry on remand, Mr. Green has not overcome the presumption that the trial court only relied upon13

relevant, material, and competent evidence on remand. Mr. Gree n’s third assignment of error is

overruled.

III. {¶28} Mr. Green’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment o f the Summit County Court of Common P leas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, direc ting the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State o f Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof , this document shall consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file sta mped by the Clerk of the Cour t of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to m ake a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

JENNIFER HENSAL FOR THE COURT14

TEODOSIO, J. CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY. SUTTON, J. CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.

APPEARANCES: DAVID M. LOWRY, Attorney a t Law, for Appellant. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuti ng Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CO RGAN, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.