[Cite as State v. Casey, 2024-Ohio-689.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

KEVIN CASEY,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2023-07-075

O P I N I O N

2/26/2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT

Case No. CRB2300958

Laura Gibson, City of Hamilton Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Christopher P. Frederick, for appellant.

S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Kevin Casey, appeals from his conviction in the Hamilton 

Municipal Court after a jury found him guilty of one count of fourth-degree misdemeanor 

domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C). For the reasons outlined below, we 

affirm Casey's domestic violence conviction.

Facts and Procedural History
Butler CA2023-07-075

- 2 -

{¶ 2} On April 17, 2023, a complaint was filed charging Casey with one count of 

domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C), a fourth-degree misdemeanor in 

accordance with R.C. 2919.25(D)(2). As set forth in the complaint, the charge arose on 

the afternoon of April 15, 2023, after it was alleged Casey approached the victim, his 

sister, and said, "I'm going to say one thing and one thing only to you in a nice way." The 

complaint alleges that Casey then moved toward the victim holding a loaded firearm in 

his right hand and stated, "I'm tired of this Casey bullshit." The complaint alleges that 

Casey then raised the firearm and pointed it directly at his sister, which caused her to 

believe that she was about to be shot, before Casey "ejected a live round that was in the 

chamber of the firearm." The record indicates this altercation occurred after the victim 

went to Casey's residence located in Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio with a box of 

collectible beer steins to give to Casey that had once belonged to their late father.

{¶ 3} On June 26, 2023, a one-day jury trial was held on the matter. During trial, 

the jury heard testimony from both the victim, Casey's sister, and Casey. This included 

the victim testifying:

My brother walked into a room, a small room where there was 

no⎯he was blocking⎯blocking the entrance and the only exit 

out of the room.

He walked in * * * with a gun in his hand, pointed it at me and 

said, and I'm going to quote him, I am tired of the Casey 

bullshit. I'm going to tell you one time and one time only. He 

raised the gun with his right hand. He brought his left hand 

up, I thought to brace the gun.

And this is where I felt I was going to lose my life, because 

[Casey's] mental instabilities, he should not have a gun.

{¶ 4} Continuing, the victim then testified:

So he [brought] his hand up. The gun was pointed directly at 

me. And I saw his other hand come up and I blocked my face 

and brought my legs up to my core, because I thought he 

was⎯I brought my legs up to the core, because if the firearm 
Butler CA2023-07-075

- 3 -

would have went off, it wouldn't have directly hit me.

And I heard a bullet hit the ground and I realized the gun did 

not discharge. So I immediately got out of the room [and ran 

down the hallway and outside the house and got into my car]. 

{¶ 5} Thereafter, when asked what the firearm that Casey pointed at her looked 

like, the victim testified:

I can tell you exactly what the barrel looked like, but I did not 

see the actual gun itself, because it was so quick. He brought 

it up from his hip and then there was a hand and I was 

blocked.

{¶ 6} This is in addition to the victim testifying as to what she was thinking 

immediately after her brother, Casey, pointed the firearm at her:

He is going to shoot me because, you know, in my mind, you 

don't raise a firearm unless you intend to use it. * * * And I 

thought he was going to use it. And when I heard the slide of 

the gun go back and the bullet hit the ground, and I didn't⎯I 

didn't hear that large bang, I had to get out of that room 

because I was⎯I just had to get out of that room because I 

was so scared.

The victim additionally testified that Casey "has in the past, yes, said, yes, I will kill you."

{¶ 7} Following deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding Casey guilty of 

the charged domestic violence offense. Upon accepting the jury's guilty verdict, the trial 

court then immediately proceeded to sentencing and sentenced Casey to a two-year term 

of community control. The trial court also ordered Casey to serve 30 days in jail, less 

three days of jail-time credit, with 17 of those days stayed, with conditions. The next day, 

June 27, 2023, Casey filed a notice of appeal.

Casey's Appeal and Single Assignment of Error

{¶ 8} Casey's appeal now properly before this court for decision, Casey has 

raised a single assignment of error for this court's review. In his single assignment of 

error, Casey argues that, in light of the evidence presented at trial, the jury's verdict finding 
Butler CA2023-07-075

- 4 -

him guilty of fourth-degree misdemeanor domestic violence in violation of R.C. 

2919.25(C) was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight 

of the evidence. We disagree with both of Casey's claims.

Sufficiency and Manifest Weight Standards of Review

{¶ 9} "A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence invokes a due process 

concern and raises the question whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the 

jury verdict as a matter of law." State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, ¶ 

165, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). Such a challenge 

"requires a determination as to whether the state has met its burden of production at trial." 

State v. Boles, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2012-06-012, 2013-Ohio-5202, ¶ 34. "The 

relevant inquiry is 'whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the 

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Roper, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2021-

05-019, 2022-Ohio-244, ¶ 39, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), 

paragraph two of the syllabus. "'Proof beyond a reasonable doubt' is proof of such 

character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most 

important of the person's own affairs." R.C. 2901.05(E). "[A] reversal based on 

insufficient evidence leads to an acquittal that bars a retrial." State v. Gideon, 165 Ohio 

St.3d 156, 2020-Ohio-6961, ¶ 27.

{¶ 10} Unlike the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review, "a manifestweight-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to the state's burden of persuasion." 

State v. Messenger, 171 Ohio St.3d 227, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26. "To determine whether 

a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this court must look at the 

entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility 

of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the 
Butler CA2023-07-075

- 5 -

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. Lewis, 12th Dist. Butler 

No. CA2019-07-128, 2020-Ohio-3762, ¶ 18, citing State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359, 

2018-Ohio-1562, ¶ 168. But, even then, a determination regarding the witnesses' 

credibility is primarily for the trier of fact to decide. State v. Baker, 12th Dist. Butler No. 

CA2019-08-146, 2020-Ohio-2882, ¶ 30, citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), 

paragraph one of the syllabus. Therefore, given that it is primarily the trier of fact who 

decides witness credibility, this court will overturn a conviction on manifest-weight 

grounds "only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at trial weighs 

heavily in favor of acquittal." State v. Kaufhold, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-09-148, 

2020-Ohio-3835, ¶ 10.

Domestic Violence in Violation of R.C. 2919.25(C)

{¶ 11} Casey was convicted of one count of fourth-degree misdemeanor domestic 

violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C). Pursuant to that statute, "[n]o person, by threat 

of force, shall knowingly cause a family or household member to believe that the offender 

will cause imminent physical harm to the family or household member." Therefore, given 

the plain language of the statute, "[f]or a violation of R.C. 2919.25(C), the state must prove 

that the victim believed the offender would cause him or her imminent physical harm at 

the time the incident took place." State v. Marshall, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2016-11-

031, 2017-Ohio-9269, ¶ 11. This necessarily means that "'the state of mind of the victim 

is an essential element of [the] crime.'" State v. Binks, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2017-08-

118, 2018-Ohio-1570, ¶ 50, quoting State v. Drake, 135 Ohio App.3d 507, 510 (12th 

Dist.1999). "Thus, 'there must be some evidence that a victim either stated, or from other 

evidence it could be inferred, that the victim thought the accused would cause imminent 
Butler CA2023-07-075

- 6 -

physical harm.'"1 State v. Baker, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-08-086, 2021-Ohio-272, 

¶ 13, quoting Hamilton v. Cameron, 121 Ohio App.3d 445, 449 (12th Dist.1997).

Casey's Argument and Analysis

{¶ 12} Casey argues the jury in this case "incorrectly weighed the evidence" and 

"did not properly execute its fact-finding responsibilities" when considering the testimony 

and evidence presented at trial. More specifically, Casey argues the evidence does not 

support the jury's verdict finding he had "knowingly caused [his sister] to believe he was 

going to harm her physically." 

{¶ 13} Casey's argument, however, completely ignores the victim's testimony 

presented in this case. This includes, as noted above, the victim's testimony that Casey 

came into the room where she was sitting while holding a firearm in his right hand and 

stated, "I am tired of the Casey bullshit. I'm going to tell you one time and one time only." 

The victim testified that Casey then pointed the firearm directly at her, thus causing the 

victim to block her face with her hand, bring her legs up to her core for protection, and 

think that she was "going to lose [her] life," given her belief that Casey should not be in 

possession of a firearm given his "mental instabilities." 

{¶ 14} This is in addition to the victim's testimony regarding her thoughts 

immediately after Casey pointed the firearm at her. As previously stated, this includes 

the victim testifying:

1. We note that, although not an issue in this case, the General Assembly has not defined the term 

"imminent" in the context of R.C. 2919.25(C). It is therefore the plain and ordinary meaning of the word 

that controls. State v. Turner, 163 Ohio St.3d 421, 2020-Ohio-6773, ¶ 18 ("[w]hen a term is not defined in 

the statute, we use the term's plain and ordinary meaning"). The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines 

"imminent" as "ready to take place; happening soon." Other appellate districts have characterized the 

"imminence" element found in R.C. 2919.25(C) as "near at hand, impending, threatening to occur 

immediately," Cincinnati v. Baarlaer, 115 Ohio App.3d 521, 527 (1st Dist.1996); and "as the belief of the 

victim that harm would occur immediately or, in the alternative, that the defendant will cause immediate 

physical harm." State v. Fisher, 197 Ohio App.3d 591, 2011-Ohio-5965, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.), citing State v. 

Taylor, 79 Ohio Misc.2d 82, 85 (M.C.1996). To the contrary, "[c]ourts have found that the danger posed by 

a threat is not imminent where the person making the threat has no means of fulfilling the threat at the time 

it is made." State v. Deveny, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2016-CA-7, 2017-Ohio-560, ¶ 21.
Butler CA2023-07-075

- 7 -

He is going to shoot me because, you know, in my mind, you 

don't raise a firearm unless you intend to use it. * * * And I 

thought he was going to use it. And when I heard the slide of 

the gun go back and the bullet hit the ground, and I 

didn't⎯didn't hear that large bang, I had to get out of that room 

because I was⎯I just had to get out of that room because I 

was so scared.

{¶ 15} We find this evidence more than sufficient to support the jury's verdict 

finding Casey guilty of domestic violence. We also find this evidence, if believed, 

establishes that Casey's domestic violence conviction was not against the manifest 

weight of the evidence. This is particularly true in this case when considering the victim 

also testified that Casey "has in the past, yes, said, yes, I will kill you." 

{¶ 16} In so holding, we note the well-established principle that a conviction is not 

against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the jury believed the 

testimony offered by the state. State v. Ell, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2023-03-006, 2023-

Ohio-4583, ¶ 13. We also note the equally well-established principle that a jury is free to 

believe all, part, or none of the testimony offered by each of the witnesses who appeared 

before it. State v. Spencer, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2018-08-082, 2019-Ohio-2165, ¶ 

27. This includes the testimony both from the victim in this case, Casey's sister, as well 

as from Casey himself. 

{¶ 17} This is in addition to the well-settled principle that the victim's testimony, 

standing alone, is sufficient to support a domestic violence conviction. See, e.g., State v. 

Mansour, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. CA2011-T-0013, 2011-Ohio-5438, ¶ 23 ("[a]lthough the 

only evidence presented by the State was [the victim's] testimony, such evidence alone 

can support a conviction of Domestic Violence"). Therefore, because Casey's domestic 

violence conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the

manifest weight of the evidence, Casey's single assignment of error lacks merit and is 

overruled. 
Butler CA2023-07-075

- 8 -

Conclusion

{¶ 18} For the reasons outlined above, and having now overruled Casey's single 

assignment of error, Casey's appeal challenging his conviction for one count of fourthdegree misdemeanor domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C) is denied.

{¶ 19} Judgment affirmed.

M. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.