[Cite as State v. Dunn , 2020-Ohio-1261.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- : : CLAUDINE DUNN : Case No. 2019 CA 00101 : Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Municipal Court, Case No. 19CRB01361

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Conviction Vacated

DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 31, 2020

APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant J. MICHAEL KING CLAUDINE DUNN, PRO SE 40 West Main Street 1213 Woodbrook Lane Fourth Floor Apt. H Newark, OH 43055 Columbus, OH 43223Wise, Earle, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Claudine Dunn, appeals the September 26, 2019 journal entry of the Municipal Court of Licking County, Ohio fi nding her guilty of failure to disclose personal information. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶ 2} On July 18, 2019, Newark police officers responded to a c all of loud noises in the area of Crocus Court in Newark, Ohio. Upon arriving in the area, the officers observed a clearing with a large tent. A male individual in th e tent gave his name. A female individual, appellant herein, was inside the tent. Ther e were two vehicles near the tent. One was registered to appellant and the other was regist ered to someone other than the male individual. After checking the registrations, th e officers returned to the tent. The male individual was gone and appellant refused to identify herself. {¶ 3} As a result, appellant was charged with obstructing offic ial business in violation of R.C. 2921.31 and failure to disclose personal info rmation in violation of R.C. 2921.29. A bench trial commenced on September 26, 2019. By jo urnal entry filed same date, the trial court found appellant not guilty of the obstruc ting charge and guilty of the failure to disclose charge. The trial court ordered appellant to pay a $75.00 fine plus court
costs. {¶ 4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before t his court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:

I{¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO ACQUIT AND/OR DISMIS S THE COMPLAINT AGAINST APPELLANT IN THAT O.R.C. 2921.29 WAS NOT VIOLATED BY THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT." II {¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN FAILING T O SUPPRESS ALL VISUAL OBSERVATIONS AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS OBTAINE D FROM APPELLANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S

. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 14 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION ." III {¶ 7} "[IDENTICAL TO ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II]" IV {¶ 8} "THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HER RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND ARTICLE 1 SECT. 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR TH E STATE OF OHIO." V {¶ 9} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS." I {¶ 10} In her first assignment of error, it appears appellant i s claiming her conviction for failure to disclose personal information was aga inst the sufficiency of the evidence. We agree. {¶ 11} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to exami ne the evidence at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would su pport a conviction. Statev. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). "The relevant inqui ry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the pro secution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime pr oven beyond a reasonable doubt." Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). {¶ 12} As noted in appellee's brief at 5, appellant was convict ed of failure to disclose personal information in violation of R.C. 2921.29(A)(1 ) which states:

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclos e the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a l aw enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the follo wing: (1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to co mmit a criminal offense.

{¶ 13} The key questions are whether appellant was in a "public place" and whether the officers "reasonably suspect[ed]" that appellant "[ wa]s committing, ha[d] committed, or [wa]s about to commit a criminal offense." If so , appellant violated R.C. 2921.29(A)(1) in refusing to identify herself; if not, appellan t did not violate the statute. State v. Dickman, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-597, 2015-Ohio-1915, ¶ 13. {¶ 14} Newark Police Officer David Burris testified he responde d to calls of a noise disturbance in the area of Crocus Court. September 26, 2019 T. at 5. He investigated the private property of Charlie Franks and observed a clearing with a tent and two vehicles. Id. at 6-7. Upon approaching the tent, a male individual popped u p, still inside the tent. Id. at 7-8. Officer Burris could see through the mesh part of the tent andobserved that the male individual was naked. Id. He could also see another individual in the tent, appellant herein. Id. at 7. The male individual gave Officer Burris a name, and the officer returned to his cruiser to run a check on the licen se plates of the two vehicles to see if the name matched either vehicle. Id. at 9. It did not. Id. {¶ 15} By that point, Newark Police Officer Wesley Jackson had arrived on the scene. Officer Burris asked appellant about the whereabouts of the male individual, and instructed Officer Jackson to obtain her information. Id. at 10, 12. Officer Burris testified they needed appellant's name and information "for reporting the incident on a NIBRS report." T. at 16. At that time, he did not know whether he w as going to take her to jail. Id. The trial court asked the officer "what did the defendant do specifically that hampered or impeded your investigation?" T. at 17. Officer Burris stat ed, "[s]he wouldn't disclose her information. She was asked for her her social security num ber or her name." Id. Officer Burris explained after they asked her to exit the tent, she obstructed their investigation by taking her clothes off, delaying their attempt to locate the male individual. Id. {¶ 16} Officer Jackson testified he made contact with appellant in the tent and his responsibility was to identify who she was. Id. at 19. She did not identify herself. Id. at 22. When he asked her to exit the tent, she removed the robe s he was wearing and asked if she could get dressed first. Id. at 21, 23. {¶ 17} Appellant testified on the day in question, she was in a tent on private property with permission from the property owner. Id. at 25. After the male individual exited the tent, the officers approached the tent and started a sking her questions. Id . at 29. She told them she was not going to answer any questions un til she got dressed first. Id. at 30. She removed the flimsy silky robe she was wearing and started to get dressed.Id. 29-30. Before she was completely dressed, the officers unzip ped the door to the tent and entered. Id. at 30. Appellant explained, "[s]o I'm trying to get dressed s o I can go get them whatever information they needed to have. So I'm wrap ping up my knee and I'm pulling my pants up and as soon as I pull my pants up, he's already got handcuffs on me." Id. When crossed-examined on why she did not tell the officers he r name, appellant explained, "I wanted to get dressed first . I felt it was impr oper for two men to stand there questioning a woman with her bottom hanging out." Id. at 32-33. {¶ 18} The record does not establish a violation of R.C. 2921.2 9(A)(1). Appellant was on private property with the permission of the property own er, not a public place. Neither officer articulated that they "reasonably suspect[ed]" that appellant "[wa]s committing, ha[d] committed, or [wa]s about to commit a crimina l offense." They wanted her information to include it on a report. {¶ 19} Upon review, we find insufficient evidence to support a conviction for failure to disclose personal information. {¶ 20} Assignment of Error I is granted. II, III, IV, V {¶ 21} Given our disposition of Assignment of Error I, these as signments of error
are moot.{¶ 22} The judgment of the Municipal Court of Licking County, O hio is hereby reversed and the conviction is vacated. By Wise, Earle, J. Wise, John, P.J. and Delaney, J. concur.

EEW/db