[Cite as State v. Moore, 2020-Ohio-342.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM 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- : 

 : 

GREGORY A. MOORE : Case No. CT2019-0030 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. CR2018-0755 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 30, 2020 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

TAYLOR P. BENNINGTON JAMES A. ANZELMO 

27 North Fifth Street 446 Howland Drive 

P.O. Box 189 Gahanna, OH 43230 

Zanesville, OH 43701 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0030 2 

 

Wise, Earle, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Gregory A. Moore, appeals his March 26, 2019 

conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio. Plaintiff-Appellee is 

state of Ohio. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} On December 19, 2018, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted 

appellant on one count of domestic violence with a prior offense in violation of R.C. 

2919.25(A). Said charge arose from an incident involving appellant and his girlfriend. 

{¶ 3} A jury trial commenced on February 26, 2019. The jury found appellant 

guilty of the charge. By entry filed March 26, 2019, the trial court sentenced appellant to 

seventeen months in prison. 

{¶ 4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignments of error are as follows: 

I 

{¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY REQUIRED MOORE TO PROVE 

SELF-DEFENSE, IN VIOLATION OF THE SECOND, FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH 

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITES STATES CONSTITUTION." 

II 

{¶ 6} "MOORE'S CONVICTION IS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, IN

VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTIONS 10 & 16, 

ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION." 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0030 3 

III 

{¶ 7} "MOORE'S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE

EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AND 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND 

SECTIONS 10 & 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION." 

I 

{¶ 8} In his first assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court improperly 

required him to prove self-defense. We disagree. 

{¶ 9} In support of his argument, appellant cites the new version of R.C. 2901.05 

which does not shift to a defendant the burden of proving self-defense. Now, it is the 

state's burden to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person did not use 

the force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence, as 

the case may be." R.C. 2901.05(B)(1). The new version took effect on March 28, 2019, 

after appellant's conviction and sentence. 

{¶ 10} "A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless expressly 

made retrospective." R.C. 1.48. See Van Fossen v. Babcock Wilcox Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 

100, 105, 522 N.E.2d 489 (1988). The statute does not state that the new version is to 

be applied retroactively. 

{¶ 11} In State v. Koch, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28000, 2019-Ohio-4099, our 

colleagues from Second District analyzed whether R.C. 2901.05 was to be applied 

retroactively, and concluded it was not. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0030 4 

{¶ 12} Upon review, we find the trial court did not improperly require appellant to 

prove self-defense. 

{¶ 13} Assignment of Error I is denied. 

II, III 

{¶ 14} In his second and third assignments of error, appellant claims his conviction 

was against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. 

{¶ 15} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at 

trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State 

v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). "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." 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). 

{¶ 16} On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire 

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

witnesses and determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury 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. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 

N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 

541 (1997). The granting of a new trial "should be exercised only in the exceptional case 

in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction." Martin at 175. 

{¶ 17} Appellant was convicted on one count of domestic violence with a prior 

offense in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) which states: "No person shall knowingly cause or 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0030 5 

attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member." Under R.C. 

2919.25(F)(1)(a)(i), a "family or household member" includes "[a]ny of the following who 

is residing or has resided with the offender: [a] spouse, a person living as a spouse, or a 

former spouse of the offender." " 'Person living as a spouse' means a person who is living 

or has lived with the offender in a common law marital relationship, who otherwise is 

cohabiting with the offender, or who otherwise has cohabited with the offender within five 

years prior to the date of the alleged commission of the act in question." R.C. 

2919.25(F)(2). 

{¶ 18} The responding officer, Muskingum County Sheriff's Deputy Ryan 

Patterson, testified he first made contact with appellant and did not observe any injuries 

to his person. T. at 170. Deputy Patterson then spoke with the complaining witness, 

appellant's girlfriend. She was crying, physically upset, and shaking. T. at 171. She 

stated appellant had struck her in the head and she fled to the neighbor's house. Id. 

Deputy Patterson observed a large goose egg/knot on the left side of her forehead. T. at 

172-174. Photographs of the complaining witness taken by Deputy Patterson during the 

investigation support this observation. T. at 174; State's Exhibits 2-4. She told Deputy 

Patterson she lived with appellant off and on, and she did not want to press charges. T. 

at 172, 175-176. Deputy Patterson testified it was common for domestic violence victims 

to not want to press charges. T. at 175. 

{¶ 19} Deputy Donnie Yester, Jr. testified he went over a domestic violence 

worksheet and a uniform statement with the complaining witness and she signed both 

forms. T. at 193, 195-196; State's Exhibits 5 and 6. He stated she was crying, shaking, 

and nervous, and she told him she was scared and nervous of appellant. T. at 197. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0030 6 

Deputy Yester also observed a large bump on the left side of her forehead. T. at 198; 

State's Exhibits 2-4. 

{¶ 20} The complaining witness testified she and appellant lived together on and 

off for seven years. T. at 209, 224. They had a sexual relationship and shared household 

expenses and duties. Id. On the day of the incident, they were living together again and 

they went to a McDonalds and argued because the complaining witness "was sick and I 

didn't feel well and I didn't want to eat." T. at 210-211. She was "dope sick." T. at 212. 

After they returned to their home, she asked appellant for $20 so she could go buy heroin 

to "get myself feeling better." T. at 213. Appellant told her she needed hit, she said "then 

hit me," and he hit her multiple times with his fist in the nose, eye, forehead, and top of 

the head. T. at 216-217. She did not expect appellant to hit her. T. at 216. Eventually 

she was able to flee to the neighbor's house. T. at 218. She testified the next day, she 

had a huge black eye, the knot on her forehead, and had bruises across her head. T. at 

223. She stated she told the deputies she did not want to press charges because she 

was scared of retaliation. T. at 221. 

{¶ 21} Appellant testified he and the complaining witness had an approximate 

three year relationship and he had evicted her from his home in June 2018. T. at 236-

238. He denied that they shared household expenses and duties, but agreed they had a 

sexual relationship. T. at 236-237, 248, 249-250. Appellant stated on the day of the 

incident, December 15, 2018, the complaining witness was at his home and started 

"tearing" things up. T. at 239. She wanted money and a ride to go buy heroin. Id. 

Appellant complied. Id. Once they arrived at an apartment, the person she was to meet

was not there and she refused to get out of appellant's car. T. at 239-240. Appellant told 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0030 7 

her he was going to take her to the Sheriff's Office. T. at 240. As he started to drive, the 

complaining witness grabbed the steering wheel and jerked. T. at 240, 254-255. 

Appellant regained control of the steering wheel and she then grabbed his left arm. T. at 

240, 255. Appellant jerked his arm away, striking her in the head. T. at 240, 255. He 

denied punching her. T. at 255-256. Appellant claimed self-defense. T. at 244, 255. 

{¶ 22} We note the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the 

witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182, 552 N.E.2d 

180 (1990). The trier of fact "has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and 

credibility of each witness, something that does not translate well on the written page." 

Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). 

{¶ 23} Evidence was presented that the two cohabitated together and the 

complaining witness sustained physical harm. Whose version of the incident to believe 

was up to the jury. 

{¶ 24} Upon review, based on the testimony and exhibits presented, we find 

sufficient evidence, if believed, to support the jury's verdict. We do not find any manifest 

miscarriage of justice. 

{¶ 25} Assignments of Error II and III are denied. 

 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2019-0030 8 

{¶ 26} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio 

is hereby affirmed. 

By Wise, Earle, J. 

Wise, John, P.J. and 

Delaney, J. concur. 

EEW/db