[Cite as State v. Dupree, 2023-Ohio-3320.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 vs.

AMEISHA DUPREE,

 Defendant-Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-220560 

 TRIAL NO. 22CRB-6900

 

O P I N I O N.

 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 20, 2023

Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, 

and Danielle Ferris, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, Lora Peters, Assistant Public 

Defender, and Spencer Hattemer, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

ZAYAS, Judge.

{¶1} Ameisha Dupree appeals her conviction, after a bench trial, for assault. 

In one assignment of error, Dupree argues that her conviction is not supported by 

sufficient evidence and is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. For the 

following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Factual Background

{¶2} Ameisha Dupree was charged with assault for kicking Verna Houston. 

Houston testified that Dupree had been dating her grandson, Trezmon Holmes. 

Holmes had allowed Dupree to move her belongings into Houston’s home the prior 

weekend while she was out of town. On that day, Houston had gone to see “the 

butterflies” with her friend Jenny Rodavich. When she returned home, Dupree’s 

belongings were on the front porch in bags, and Dupree was searching through the 

bags and placing items on the porch. Houston asked her to take the bags to her car 

because Dupree was blocking the door. When Dupree refused, Houston decided to 

move the bag. Before Houston could move the bag, Dupree grabbed Houston’s purse 

from her arm, threw it, and pushed Houston away from the bag.

{¶3} As Houston was retrieving her purse, Dupree ran into the house. 

Houston followed her into the home, and Dupree kicked her in the upper chest area 

causing her pain. Houston called the police, and the police made Dupree leave the 

residence. Admittedly, Houston did not like Dupree and did not want her at her home. 

{¶4} Rodavich testified that she had spent the day with Houston and drove 

Houston home after having lunch. When she arrived, Rodavich saw black garbage 

bags on Houston’s porch and Dupree searching the bags. As Rodavich parked her car, 

Houston asked Dupree twice to take her belongings and leave the property. Dupree 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

ignored Houston and continued looking through the bags and moving things from one 

bag to another. When Houston tried to move the bags, Dupree grabbed her purse and 

threw it into the neighbor’s yard. Houston retrieved her purse, and Dupree and 

Houston were yelling. Rodavich returned to her car to call 911, and when she turned 

around, the two had gone into the house. 

{¶5} Rodavich returned to the porch, looked into the house, and saw Dupree 

kick Houston in the lower body area. While looking in the house, Rodavich saw 

Houston’s grandson Holmes standing at the top of the steps. Other than the kick, she 

did not see any physical contact involving Houston, Dupree, and Holmes. Rodavich 

testified that Houston did not touch or kick Dupree.

{¶6} After Rodavich’s testimony, the state rested, and Dupree testified on her 

own behalf. 

{¶7} Dupree testified that she had been staying at Houston’s home and 

received a text message from Houston’s grandson Holmes to retrieve her belongings. 

One of the bags on the porch had a hole in it, so Dupree was pushing the clothing into 

the bag so she could put it in her car.

{¶8} While she was on the porch, Houston and Rodavich pulled into the 

driveway, and Houston said, “[O]h, hell nah, get the fuck off my porch.” Houston 

grabbed the bag out of her hand, threw it into the grass, spilling her belongings, and 

continued to ask her to leave. When Dupree picked up her clothes and returned to the 

porch, Houston grabbed the bag and again threw it into the grass. Houston kicked a 

bag into the grass, and Dupree had to retrieve her clothing for a third time. This time, 

when Dupree returned to the porch, she grabbed Houston’s purse and threw it into the 

grass. Dupree admitted that she hit Houston’s chest while grabbing the purse.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

{¶9} At this point, Rodavich got out of her car and told her to leave. Dupree 

responded, “Shut your white ass up.” Holmes came out of the house, and Houston 

told him that Dupree had “put her hands on her.” Holmes snatched Dupree’s bonnet 

from her head and ran into the house. Dupree ran after Holmes, and he punched her 

in the face. Houston picked up a broom and hit her in the legs. Dupree kicked Houston 

to make her stop, while Holmes was punching her in the head. After Holmes stopped 

punching her, the police arrived.

{¶10} During closing arguments, Dupree argued that she and Houston 

engaged in mutual combat because Houston hit her first and requested the court to 

find her not guilty of assault or, in the alternative, guilty of a misdemeanor disorderly 

conduct.

{¶11} The trial court found Dupree guilty after specifying that the testimony 

of Houston and Rodavich was credible, there was not a mutual fight, and Dupree 

admitted that she kicked Houston.

{¶12} Dupree now appeals, and in one assignment of error, she argues that the 

conviction for assault was not supported by sufficient evidence and ran contrary to the 

manifest weight of the evidence because the state failed to establish that Houston 

suffered physical harm. In the alternative, Dupree argues that the court should have

found her guilty of the lesser-included offense of disorderly conduct because the two 

engaged in mutual combat.

Law and Analysis

{¶13} In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing 

court must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Ham, 1st Dist. 

Hamilton No. C-170043, 2017-Ohio-9189, ¶ 19, citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 

259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶14} “When considering a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the court 

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

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

in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage 

of justice.” Id., citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). 

We afford substantial deference to credibility determinations because the factfinder 

sees and hears the witnesses. See State v. Glover, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180572, 

2019-Ohio-5211, ¶ 30. “This court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier 

of fact on the issue of witness credibility unless it is patently apparent that the trier of 

fact lost its way in arriving at its verdict.” State v. Prather, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C210585, 2023-Ohio-784, ¶ 44, citing State v. Bailey, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140129, 

2015-Ohio-2997, ¶ 63.

{¶15} R.C. 2903.13(A) provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o person shall 

knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another.” “Physical harm” is 

defined as “any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its 

gravity or duration.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(3). “The slightest injury is sufficient proof of 

physical harm.” State v. Daniels, 2018-Ohio-1701, 111 N.E.3d 708, ¶ 35 (1st Dist.).

{¶16} According to Houston, Dupree kicked her in the upper chest area 

causing her pain. Houston’s testimony that the kick by Dupree caused her pain was 

sufficient to establish that Dupree caused physical harm to Houston. See State v. Neff, 

10th Dist. Franklin No. 92 AP 655, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 5074, 2 (Sept. 30, 1992) (the 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6

act of grabbing and jerking a victim’s arm and causing pain constitutes physical harm); 

State v. Johnson, 2d Dist. Greene No. 88-CA-83, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 1523, 4 (Apr. 

27, 1989) (the infliction of pain by grabbing the male genitalia is physical harm); State 

v. Hill, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20678, 2005-Ohio-3701, ¶ 34 (holding that “a paininducing blow is sufficient to satisfy the ‘physical harm’ element of Assault.”).

{¶17} Dupree argues that Houston’s testimony demonstrated physical contact 

but not physical harm, citing State v. Brown, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-1140, 2020-

Ohio-1650. However, in Brown, the victim testified that the kick to his stomach did 

not hurt. Id. at ¶ 20. The court concluded that the evidence must establish some harm 

in the form of an injury or pain. Id. Here, the evidence was sufficient to establish 

harm in the form of pain. See id.

{¶18} Dupree further argues that Houston’s testimony was not credible. “It is 

well settled law that the trial court was in the best position to determine the credibility 

of the witnesses.” Daniels, 2018-Ohio-1701, 111 N.E.3d 708, at ¶ 37. The trial court 

found that Houston’s testimony was credible.

{¶19} In the alternative, Dupree contends that the trial court erred “when it 

refused to consider the altercation between Ms. Dupree and Ms. Houston as mutual 

combat because the court determined Ms. Dupree was trespassing.” The record 

reflects that the trial court considered whether the two were engaged in mutual combat 

and determined they were not because Houston asked Dupree to leave the property, 

Houston touched a bag and not Dupree, Dupree ran into the home, and Dupree 

admittedly kicked Houston.

{¶20} Based on this record, the evidence was sufficient to support the assault 

conviction. We cannot say that the trial court clearly lost its way and created such a 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

7

manifest miscarriage of justice that we must reverse Dupree’s conviction and order a 

new trial. We overrule the sole assignment of error.

Conclusion

{¶21} Having overruled the sole assignment of error, we affirm the judgment 

of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

CROUSE, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its own entry this date.