Court Opinion

ID: 9948897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 14:07:46.538226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:18.383647
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Brown, 2024-Ohio-715.]
                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
              FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                   HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 STATE OF OHIO,                                     :   APPEAL NO. C-230308
                                                        TRIAL NO. 22CRB-14553
         Plaintiff-Appellee,                        :

   vs.                                              :     O P I N I O N.

 SAPPHIRE BROWN,                                    :

     Defendant-Appellant.                           :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: February 28, 2024

Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Proseuting Attorney,
and Dahkota Parish, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant
Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

WINKLER, Judge.
         {¶1}   Following a bench trial, defendant-appellant Sapphire Brown was

convicted of assault under R.C. 2903.13(A).            She now appeals, asserting one

assignment of error challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence supporting

her conviction. We find no merit in her assignment of error, and we affirm her

conviction.

         {¶2}   The record shows that on August 8, 2022, the victim, Aswana Laskey,

went to her niece’s home to pick up some money. As Laskey got out of her car, she had

her cell phone, her purse, and her keys in her left hand. As she approached her niece’s

apartment building, she saw three women sitting on the porch. She recognized one of

the women, London Walker, because she had attended her mother’s funeral.

         {¶3}   At first, Laskey ignored the three women. She knew that Walker had

had issues with her niece, but she did not want to get involved as she had “never had

any interaction with them.” She told them, “I have nothing to do with what you all

have going on with my niece.” The women got off of the step and approached Laskey.

She put her hand up, and told Walker that she was too close and to “get out of [her]

face.”

         {¶4}   The women then surrounded Laskey and started hitting her on her head

and face. Laskey attempted to cover her head. She was also focused on trying not to

drop her phone, purse and keys. She did not fight back because she was not able to,

and her primary goal was “to keep her head safe and not to fall on the ground because

[she] did not want to be kicked or stomped on.”

         {¶5}   Nevertheless, Laskey testified that she was hit on the left side of her face.

Laskey knew that Brown was the attacker on her left, even though she did not yet know

Brown’s name. Laskey was certain that Brown was the women who hit her during the

                                                 2
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

attack because Brown was the one on her left side. As a result of the attack, Laskey

had bruising, a swollen face and eye, a lump on her head, and a concussion.

       {¶6}   After the attack, Laskey called the police and made a report. One of the

officers at the scene described her as “very afraid and frantic” and noted that she had

a “pretty big knot on her forehead” and “a busted top lip.” Laskey told the officers that

she did not know the women who had attacked her other than Walker. She could not

describe her attackers or their clothing because it was too dark. She described the light

from the porch and a street light as dim.

       {¶7}   A short time later, a warrant was issued for Walker’s arrest.

Subsequently, Detective Michael Schneider was assigned to the case. He received a tip

from Laskey’s niece that Brown was also involved in the incident. He put together a

photo lineup, which included a picture of Brown. Then, he called Laskey and told her

that he had a person of interest, and asked whether she could identify that person from

a photo lineup.

       {¶8}   He asked Detective Jacquelyn Metz to conduct a blind administration

lineup. In compliance with the Cincinnati Police Department’s policy on lineups,

Detective Metz did not know who the suspect was and did not view the photos herself.

Under that policy, she presented Laskey with ten folders, six of which contained

photos and four of which each had a blank piece of paper, and she went over the

instructions with Laskey. Laskey took her time looking through the photographs at

first. Then she asked to see two of the photos again. She identified Brown and

indicated to Detective Metz that she was 90 percent sure Brown was one of her

attackers.

                                               3
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶9}   The photos from the lineup were presented at trial, and Laskey

indicated which photograph she had identified. She told the court that she was sure

that the person she identified then was the same person who assaulted her.

       {¶10} In her sole assignment of error, Brown contends that her conviction for

assault was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight

of the evidence. She argues that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that she assaulted Laskey. This assignment of error is not well taken.

       {¶11} The relevant inquiry, when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence 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 offense proved

beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991),

paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Hackney, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150375,

2016-Ohio-4609, ¶ 29. In deciding if the evidence was sufficient, we neither resolve

evidentiary conflicts nor assess the credibility of witnesses. State v. Walker, 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-190193, 2020-Ohio-1581, ¶ 60.

       {¶12} Brown was convicted of assault under R.C. 2903.13(A), which provides,

“No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another * * *.”

Besides proof of each element of the offense, the state must also demonstrate the

identity of the defendant as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cook,

65 Ohio St.3d 516, 526, 605 N.E.2d 70 (1992); Hackney at ¶ 30.

       {¶13} Brown contends that the state failed to prove that she was involved in

the assault because Laskey’s identification of her was unreliable, and proper

procedures were not followed during the photo lineup. We note that Brown had filed

a motion to suppress the identification testimony, but later withdrew that motion.

                                               4
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶14} Brown further argues that Laskey told the police at the scene that she

could not identify anyone other than Walker because the light was dim and she could

not see her attackers because they were hitting her. Laskey informed police that her

attackers had lighter skin and appeared to be in their mid-20s, but she could not

provide any other information. Brown was named as a person of interest only after

Laskey’s niece, who was involved in a dispute with Brown’s sister, called Detective

Schneider and gave him Brown’s name.

       {¶15} But as the trial court noted, Laskey consistently identified Brown as one

of the women involved in the assault. Though Laskey did not know Brown’s name, she

identified Brown in court and in the photo lineup as the person on her left who struck

her several times with a closed fist. One of the state’s exhibits was a photograph of her

injuries taken about 20 minutes after the assault. She said that a lump on the left side

of her head depicted in the photo was caused by Brown, because Brown was the person

standing on her left side.

       {¶16} Our review of the record shows that a rational trier of fact, after viewing

the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found that the

state proved beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of assault under R.C.

2903.13(A). Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

       {¶17} Brown also argues that the conviction was against the manifest weight

of the evidence. After reviewing the record, we cannot hold that the trier of fact lost

its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that we must reverse

Brown’s conviction and order a new trial. Therefore, the conviction was not against

the manifest weight of the evidence. See State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387,

678 N.E.2d 541 (1997); State v. Porter, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200459, 2021-Ohio-

3232, ¶ 24.

                                               5
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶18} Basically, Brown argues that Laskey’s testimony was inconsistent and

not credible. A defendant is not entitled to a reversal on manifest-weight grounds

merely because inconsistent evidence was presented at trial. State v. Ridley, 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-210458, 2022-Ohio-2561, ¶ 25. Further, the trial court specifically

stated that it found Laskey’s testimony to be credible, and matters as to the credibility

of evidence are for the trier of fact to decide. State v. Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272, 2004-

Ohio-971, 804 N.E.2d 433, ¶ 116; Ridley at ¶ 25. Under the circumstances, we overrule

Brown’s assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                    Judgment affirmed.

BOCK, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.

Please note:
       The court has recorded its own entry this date.

                                                6