[Cite as State v. Dotson, 2013-Ohio-2200.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

 No. 98884 

STATE OF OHIO 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

DALE DOTSON

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

REVERSED AND VACATED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-559032 

BEFORE: Kilbane, J., Stewart, A.J., and Blackmon, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 30, 2013
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Thomas A. Rein 

Leader Building, Suite 940 

526 Superior Avenue 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

James M. Price 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center - 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Dale Dotson (“Dotson”), appeals from his conviction 

for criminal damaging. We find insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and 

therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and vacate Dotson’s conviction. 

{¶2} On February 3, 2012, Dotson was indicted on two counts of felonious 

assault and one count of criminal damaging with a furthermore clause alleging that he 

created a risk of physical harm to a person following an alleged altercation with Scott 

Jankowski (“Jankowski”), the father of his former girlfriend, on December 11, 2011. 

Dotson waived his right to a jury trial, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial on July 

18, 2012. 

{¶3} For its key evidence, the state presented the testimony of Jankowski, Kristin 

Jankowski (“Kristin”), and Cleveland Police Detective Keith Haven (“Detective Haven”). 

 Jankowski testified that Dotson is the former boyfriend of his daughter, Kristin, and not 

welcome at their home. However, on December 11, 2011, he called and said that he was 

coming over. A short time later, Jankowski’s son ran inside the house and said that 

Dotson was there. At the time Dotson arrived, a bag of items intended for Goodwill was 

at the side door of the house. Dotson demanded to speak with Kristin, but Jankowski 

instructed her to call the police. Jankowski then told Dotson that he was not welcome at 

their home and that the police were on their way. Dotson left, but he returned a short 
time later with another individual and proceeded to bang on the door. According to 

Jankowski, Dotson had a knife in his hand and sliced Jankowski across the finger. 

Jankowski told Dotson that he was in trouble and closed the door. A few moments later, 

the living room window shattered, scattering glass inside the house. Jankowski did not 

see who had broken the window, but he testified that he observed Dotson and the other 

individual fleeing down the driveway. 

{¶4} Kristin testified that Dotson came to the house to see her and to get his 

things. Her father told her to call the police. She called the police, reporting that her 

father had chased Dotson away. A short time later, someone broke a window. Kristin 

did not see what happened, but she stated that Dotson was present when the window 

shattered. Dotson then fled to a car belonging to Morace Williams (“Williams”). 

Kristin further testified that she observed her father sustain a cut to his finger while he 

was slashing one of the tires of Williams’s car. 

{¶5} Detective Haven testified that Dotson made an oral statement regarding the 

incident. In this statement, he identified Kristin as his former girlfriend and indicated 

that he had resided at her home. Shortly before the incident, he was playing basketball 

with his friends, Williams and Thomas Bernardi (“Bernardi”). Dotson called Kristin and 

a man answered her phone so defendant decided to go to her house to get his belongings. 

When the group arrived at Kristin’s, Dotson noticed a box of some of his things outside, 

so he asked for the rest of his things. At this point, according to Dotson’s statement, his 

friends took the box to the car, and Jankowski came to the door with a knife, slashing it 
toward Dotson’s left arm. The group left, but Williams told Dotson that he should get 

the rest of his things. When Dotson and Williams walked back toward the house, Dotson 

heard the window shatter, and Jankowski and another individual charged at them. They 

fled back to the car, but before they could leave, Jankowski punctured one of the tires. 

The group then sped away. Dotson told the officer that he did not break the window and 

did not cut Jankowski’s finger. 

{¶6} Dotson elected to present evidence. The testimony of Bernardi and 

Williams established that Dotson asked them to go with him to his girlfriend’s home in 

Cleveland so that he could pick up his belongings. They left in a car belonging to 

Williams. When they arrived at Jankowski’s house, they observed a box of Dotson’s 

things at the side door. Dotson observed that the box had old items and did not contain 

any of his newer possessions. Williams testified that he put the box in the trunk of the 

car. He observed Jankowski running out of his house with a knife, swinging at Dotson 

three or four times. 

{¶7} The trio left, but according to Bernardi and Williams, Dotson again called the 

Jankowski home asking for his belongings. The group returned to the Jankowski home, 

and Dotson and Williams went to the door and asked Jankowski for Dotson’s belongings. 

 At that point, according to these witnesses, there was a loud crashing sound and 

Jankowski and another individual, who were both wielding knives, chased Dotson and 

Williams from the house. Dotson and Williams fled to the car and locked the doors. 
Jankowski pursed them and slashed one of the tires of Williams’s car. The group then 

sped away. Bernardi and Williams further testified that Dotson did not have a knife. 

{¶8} The trial court subsequently acquitted Dotson of the felonious assault charges 

and the furthermore clause in the criminal damaging charge, but convicted him of 

criminal damaging. On August 8, 2012, the court sentenced Dotson to time served and 

ordered that he pay $300 in restitution. Dotson now appeals and assigns two errors for 

our review. 

 Assignment of Error One 

The state failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction against 

Appellant. 

{¶9} When an appellate court reviews a claim of insufficient evidence, 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. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54, 2004-Ohio-6235, 818 

N.E.2d 229, ¶ 77. 

{¶10} The elements of criminal damaging are set forth in R.C. 2909.06, which 

provides as follows: 

(A) No person shall cause, or create a substantial risk of physical harm to 

any property of another without the other person’s consent: 

(1) Knowingly, by any means[.] 

{¶11} In this matter, the state presented eyewitness testimony from Jankowski and 

his daughter Kristin. Neither of these witnesses observed who broke the window at the 
home. Jankowski testified that after Dotson arrived at his house, he told Dotson that he 

was in trouble. Jankowski then closed the door, and a few moments later the living room 

window shattered. Dotson and Williams fled. Kristin likewise testified that she did not 

see who had broken the window. She stated that Dotson was present when the window 

was broken and that he and Williams then fled. The trial court acknowledged that the 

state’s evidence did not identify the individual who was responsible for criminal 

damaging. The court stated: 

The court — we don’t know who broke the window — but we do know that 

Mr. Dotson’s going over there a second time, I think, was inappropriate for 

him to do that. 

{¶12} The court next considered whether Dotson was guilty of criminal damaging 

“by virtue of the fact that his friends were aiding and abetting him[.]” Complicity 

liability was explained in State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240, 2001-Ohio-1336, 754 

N.E.2d 796, as follows: 

This court has held that “the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a 

crime is not sufficient to prove, in and of itself, that the accused was an 

aider and abettor.” State v. Widner (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 267, 269, 23 

Ohio Op. 3d 265, 266, 431 N.E.2d 1025, 1027. This rule is to protect 

innocent bystanders who have no connection to the crime other than simply 

being present at the time of its commission. 

* * * [In] State v. Sims (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 56, 10 Ohio B.Rep. 65, 

460 N.E.2d 672, paragraph two of the syllabus * * * [the court] held that 

“[a] person cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting a principal offender 

in the commission of an offense in the absence of evidence that the person 

assisted, incited or encouraged the principal to commit the offense.” 

 Johnson at paragraph three of the syllabus. 
{¶13} In this matter, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the 

prosecution, the state’s evidence established merely that Dotson was present when the 

window shattered. The state presented no evidence that he broke the window, and there 

was no evidence that he assisted, incited or encouraged a principal offender to commit the 

offense. Accordingly, we are compelled to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to 

support his conviction for criminal damaging. 

{¶14} The first assignment of error is well taken. 

 Assignment of Error Two 

Appellant’s conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶15} In light of our disposition of Dotson’s first assignment of error, we 

overrule this assignment of error as moot. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). 

{¶16} Judgment reversed and conviction vacated. 

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, A.J., and 
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCUR