[Cite as State v. Glunt, 2014-Ohio-3533.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF MEDINA ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

NICOLE R. GLUNT 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 13CA0050-M 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO 

CASE No. 13CR0148 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: August 18, 2014 

 

HENSAL, Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, Nicole R. Glunt, appeals her convictions in the Medina County Court 

of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} Ms. Glunt’s boyfriend, James Robinson, had an altercation with another patron at 

Johnny J’s bar in Medina. During the course of the argument, Mr. Robinson pulled out a knife 

and attempted to stab the other patron. An off-duty Johnny J employee intervened and took the 

knife from Mr. Robinson after a struggle. As the employee was in the process of placing the 

knife on the bar, another man, Shawn Ward, took the knife from him and placed it further down 

the bar. Almost immediately, Ms. Glunt motioned to Mr. Ward to hand her the knife. She took 

it from him and placed it in her coat pocket. 

{¶3} Several minutes later, Ms. Glunt was questioned by a police officer after an 

employee alerted him to the fact that she was with Mr. Robinson that evening. In response to the 
2 

 

officer’s inquiry about the knife’s location, she immediately handed it over. Ms. Glunt was 

charged with one count of tampering with evidence in violation of Revised Code Section 

2921.12(A)(1). A jury convicted her of the offense. Ms. Glunt has appealed raising four 

assignments of error which we combine and rearrange to facilitate our analysis. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

MS. GLUNT’S CONVICTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT 

EVIDENCE. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING HER CRIMINAL RULE 29 

MOTIONS FOR ACQUITTAL. 

{¶4} Ms. Glunt argues in her second and third assignments of error that her conviction 

was not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, she maintains that the State failed to 

prove that she either impaired or intended to impair the knife as evidence in the police 

investigation. 

{¶5} “We review a denial of a defendant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal by 

assessing the sufficiency of the State’s evidence.” State v. Slevin, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25956, 

2012-Ohio-2043, ¶ 15. “Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a 

question of law” that this Court reviews de novo. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 

(1997). 

An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to 

determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind 

of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is 

whether, after reviewing 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. 
3 

 

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. The test for sufficiency 

requires a determination of whether the State has met its burden of production at trial. 

Thompkins at 390 (Cook, J. concurring). 

{¶6} Ms. Glunt was convicted of tampering with evidence in violation of Revised Code 

Section 2921.12(A)(1), which provides that “[n]o person, knowing that an official proceeding or 

investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall * * * [a]lter, destroy, 

conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or 

availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation[.]” “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 he is 

aware that such circumstances probably exist.” R.C. 2901.22(B). 

{¶7} The Ohio Supreme Court recently examined Section 2921.12(A)(1) in State v. 

Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339, 2014-Ohio-2139. It recognized that tampering with evidence 

consists of three elements: “(1) the knowledge of an official proceeding or investigation in 

progress or likely to be instituted, (2) the alteration, destruction, concealment or removal of the 

potential evidence, (3) the purpose of impairing the potential evidence’s availability or value in 

such proceeding or investigation.” Straley at ¶ 11. Ms. Glunt’s argument focuses on the second 

and third prongs concerning the knife’s alteration, concealment or removal as evidence and her 

intent in taking possession of the knife. The State must establish that she altered, destroyed, 

concealed or removed the knife and that she “intended to impair the value or availability of 

evidence that related to the existing or likely official investigation or proceeding.” Id. at ¶ 19. 

{¶8} “The mere fact that a [knife] was removed from a crime scene does not support an 

inference that it was taken to impair its value or availability as evidence.” State v. Lollis, 9th 
4 

 

Dist. Summit No. 24826, 2010-Ohio-4457, ¶ 30. Further, we note that it is not necessary for the 

State to set forth direct evidence of a tampering with evidence offense. State v. Simpson, 9th 

Dist. Lorain No. C.A. 11CA010138, 2012-Ohio-3195, ¶ 24. “Circumstantial evidence may 

suffice.” Id. 

{¶9} Johnny J employee, Seth Starman, testified that he was playing pool after having 

just ended his shift. Mr. Starman heard a chair scrape against the floor and turned to see two 

men “tussling” over a knife. According to him, he wrestled the knife away from the men and set 

it in the divot on the bar where the dirty glasses are placed. He neither saw the knife again nor 

could testify to what happened to it after he placed it on the bar. Mr. Starman testified that he 

helped escort Mr. Robinson to the front of the bar where he continued to struggle. The two 

women who were there with Mr. Robinson, Ms. Glunt and Elizabeth Cox, kept trying to 

persuade the Johnny J employees to get off of Mr. Robinson so that they could leave. 

{¶10} Another Johnny J employee, Chris Maraessa, testified that he assisted other 

employees in attempting to subdue Mr. Robinson. According to Mr. Maraessa, he pushed Ms. 

Glunt’s hand away when she tried to reach into Mr. Robinson’s pockets. Thereafter, she yelled 

at the employees to reach into Mr. Robinson’s pockets and to let him go. 

{¶11} Sergeant Nathan Simpson testified that after he arrived at Johnny J’s, he searched 

for the knife. Witnesses pointed out a spot on the top of the bar where the knife was placed, but 

his search failed to locate it. According to Sergeant Simpson, he learned from Mr. Maraessa that 

two females were there with Mr. Robinson at the time. Sergeant Simpson reported that Mr. 

Maraessa pointed out Ms. Glunt and Elizabeth Cox who were outside the bar near an ambulance 

where Mr. Robinson was receiving medical attention for his injuries. Sergeant Simpson testified 

that, after he determined Ms. Glunt was Mr. Robinson’s girlfriend, he asked her if she had the 
5 

 

knife. She replied that she did and retrieved it from her coat pocket without hesitation. 

According to Sergeant Simpson, she explained that she took the knife because “she didn’t know 

what was going on. She saw her boyfriend with a bloody hand and the next thing she knew, she 

grabbed the knife and took it.” Sergeant Simpson’s uncontroverted testimony was that Ms. 

Glunt did not volunteer the fact that she had the knife and that she did not immediately pull the 

knife out of her pocket as soon as he approached her before asking her any questions. There was 

no evidence that the knife was physically altered in any way or that is was unavailable for use as 

evidence in Mr. Robinson’s criminal case. Sergeant Simpson testified that he spoke with Ms. 

Glunt approximately 10 and one-half minutes after the incident. 

{¶12} Elizabeth Cox testified that she accompanied Ms. Glunt and Mr. Robinson that 

day as they ran errands, went to a restaurant in Seville to have a beer, and then to Johnny J’s. 

Ms. Cox stated that all three of them were “pretty intoxicated” due to the fact that they had not 

eaten anything all day and were consuming shots of liquor. According to her, Ms. Glunt 

consumed five or six shots of liquor at Johnny J’s. 

{¶13} She reported that Ms. Glunt and Mr. Robinson introduced her to their friend, 

Shawn Ward, who was also at Johnny J’s with another man named John Talpas. According to 

Ms. Cox, Mr. Ward and Mr. Talpas were sitting in the back of the bar while she, Ms. Glunt, and 

Mr. Robinson were sitting near the front. She testified that her group was getting ready to leave 

when Mr. Robinson approached Mr. Talpas and a disagreement followed that led to Mr. 

Robinson pulling out a knife. 

{¶14} Ms. Cox testified that she witnessed Mr. Robinson pull the knife from his back 

pocket, but that she did not see it again until she saw Ms. Glunt hand it to Sergeant Simpson. 

She reported that Ms. Glunt did not discuss the knife with her. According to Ms. Cox, she was 
6 

 

standing 10 feet away from Ms. Glunt during her discussion with Sergeant Simpson. She 

overheard Ms. Glunt tell him that she was “so messed up right now” and that she did not know 

what was going on. Ms. Cox further testified that Ms. Glunt reported to Sergeant Simpson that 

she grabbed the knife to make sure no one else got hurt. 

{¶15} The jury viewed the surveillance video from Johnny J’s that recorded the events 

leading up to and including the altercation between Mr. Robinson and Mr. Talpas. It showed 

Ms. Glunt joining Mr. Robinson approximately three minutes after he approached Mr. Ward and 

Mr. Talpas in the back of the bar. She stood within a few feet of both Mr. Talpas and Mr. 

Robinson when the incident occurred. The video revealed that, as Mr. Starman went to put the 

knife down after taking it from Mr. Robinson, Mr. Ward took it from him and moved it further 

down the bar. Almost immediately, Ms. Glunt extended her hand toward Mr. Ward and he 

handed her the fully-extended knife. Ms. Glunt closed the knife and put it in her coat pocket. 

The video further showed several police officers and Johnny J employees searching for the knife 

around the bar area after the incident. 

{¶16} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, this Court concludes 

that there was sufficient evidence to convict Ms. Glunt of tampering with evidence in violation 

of Revised Code Section 2921.12(A)(1). A rational trier of fact could have found that Ms. Glunt 

knew that an investigation was likely to ensue given that Mr. Robinson attempted to harm Mr. 

Talpas with a knife and that the knife would be potential evidence in his likely future 

prosecution. Further, the video demonstrated that Ms. Glunt quickly removed the knife from the 

immediate scene of the incident, and Mr. Starman and Mr. Maraessa both testified that she was 

yelling at them to let Mr. Robinson go so they could leave Johnny J’s. While Ms. Glunt gave the 

knife to Sergeant Simpson when he asked for it, the jury could reasonably infer from the video 
7 

 

and witness testimony that Ms. Robinson concealed and removed the knife from the scene with 

the purpose of impairing its availability for use as potential evidence in the investigation. 

Accordingly, Ms. Glunt’s second and third assignments of error are overruled. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

MS. GLUNT’S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF 

THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶17} In her first assignment of error, Ms. Glunt argues that her conviction was against 

the manifest weight of the evidence. This Court disagrees. 

{¶18} “While the test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the state has 

met its burden of production at trial, a manifest weight challenge questions whether the state has 

met its burden of persuasion.” State v. Carr, Summit No. 26661, 2014-Ohio-806, ¶ 28, quoting 

State v. Adams, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26009, 2012-Ohio-4382, ¶ 8. To determine whether a 

conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this Court 

must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, 

consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts 

in evidence, 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. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). Weight of the evidence pertains to the 

greater amount of credible evidence produced in a trial to support one side over the other side. 

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387. The appellate court should only exercise its power to reverse 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. 

{¶19} Ms. Glunt reiterates the same argument she made in both her second and third 

assignments of error that there was no evidence that she removed or concealed the knife with 

purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in the investigation. 
8 

 

{¶20} Sergeant Simpson testified that Ms. Glunt told him she did not know what 

happened but that “[s]he saw her boyfriend with a bloody hand and the next thing she knew, she 

grabbed the knife and took it.” Despite Ms. Cox’s testimony to the contrary, Sergeant Simpson 

testified that he did not recall Ms. Glunt telling him that she took the knife so that no one would 

get injured. 

{¶21} Officer Josh Grusendorf testified that he took custody of Ms. Glunt when she 

turned herself in on March 4, 2013, after a warrant was issued for her arrest. He witnessed a 

written statement Ms. Glunt completed wherein she stated in part that: 

We were getting ready to leave. I went to the bathroom and paid our tab. The 

next thing I knew [Mr. Robinson] was being held against the wall, his head was 

being hit off of the wall in front of him and his hands were being held above his 

head with a knife in it. I got the knife from him to stop any injuries from 

happening in case he dropped it. I put the knife in my pocket[.] I did not want to 

lay it on the bar or anything so someone else could get it. 

{¶22} The State points out that the surveillance video belies both Ms. Glunt’s statement 

to Sergeant Simpson and her own written statement. The video shows that she did not take the 

knife directly from Mr. Robinson, but rather from Mr. Ward after she asked for it and after it was 

already placed on the bar. The video further shows that Mr. Robinson was at the bar rather than 

near a wall at the time the knife was taken from him. 

{¶23} It was within the jury’s province to determine the weight to be given the 

evidence. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. On the one 

hand, it could have found that Ms. Glunt took the knife with the intent to prevent additional harm 

to others. The jury, however, in convicting her, did not believe her stated reason for taking the 

knife, as articulated to Sergeant Simpson and in her written statement. “A conviction is not 

against the manifest weight [of the evidence] because the jury chose to credit the State’s version 

of the events.” State v. Wilson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26683, 2014-Ohio-376, ¶ 31, quoting State 
9 

 

v. Minor, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26362, 2013-Ohio-558, ¶ 28. See also State v. Gay, 9th Dist. No. 

26487, 2013-Ohio-4169, ¶ 26 (Noting that the jury had the video of the incident to assist it in 

resolving inconsistent witness testimony in reaching its decision.) This Court cannot conclude 

that the jury clearly lost its way in convicting Ms. Glunt of tampering with evidence. Her first 

assignment of error is overruled. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV 

THE STATE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY REPEATED ACTS OF 

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING CLOSING STATEMENTS 

THAT DENIED MS. GLUNT A FAIR TRIAL. 

{¶24} In her fourth assignment of error, Ms. Glunt argues that she was denied her 

constitutional right to a fair trial when the prosecutor engaged in numerous instances of 

misconduct during closing arguments. We disagree. 

{¶25} Ms. Glunt asserts that the State committed misconduct by: (1) stating that 

“[t]here’s no such thing” as her argument that she was not guilty of tampering since the knife 

was not destroyed and was available as evidence; (2) characterizing her theory of the case as a 

“distraction” and that she was making a “spurious argument;” (3) claiming that she lied to the 

police about the incident and her purpose in taking the knife; (4) criticizing her defense counsel 

for “switch[ing] gears” and doing “mental gymnastics” in order to explain the contradiction 

between her written statement and the video; (5) accusing her counsel of “doing exactly what 

he’s not supposed to do” in comparing the facts of her case to the facts of other more serious 

tampering cases; (6) telling the jury he did not want them to “pull a muscle in [their] brain trying 

to follow [defense counsel’s] argument because it’s not even worth it,” (7) stating that she had a 

consciousness of guilt; and (8) proposing to the jury that Mr. Robinson’s defense counsel may 
10 

 

question whether the knife was the one used in the altercation because Ms. Glunt intervened in 

the chain of custody of the knife and fingerprints may have been wiped off in the process. 

{¶26} The record reflects that Ms. Glunt failed to object to any of these alleged 

instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Accordingly, she has forfeited all but plain error. State v. 

Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, ¶ 242. This Court, however, declines to address 

the merits of her argument because Ms. Glunt has failed to argue plain error on appeal. State v. 

Ball, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26537, 2013-Ohio-3506, ¶ 44; State v. Charlton, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 

12CA010206, 2014-Ohio-1330, ¶ 36 (“[T]his court will not sua sponte undertake a plain-error 

analysis if a defendant fails to do so.”) Accordingly, her fourth assignment of error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶27} Ms. Glunt’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Medina 

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Medina, State of 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 constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court 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 
11 

 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 JENNIFER HENSAL 

 FOR THE COURT 

BELFANCE, P. J. 

WHITMORE, J. 

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

MICHAEL J. CALLOW, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

DEAN HOLMAN, Prosecuting Attorney, and MATTHEW A. KERN, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for Appellee.