Court Opinion

ID: 9890629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 18:08:37.572147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:39.800128
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Lottie, 2023-Ohio-3738.]

                                         COURT OF APPEALS
                                      RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 STATE OF OHIO                                   JUDGES:
                                                 Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellee                      Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                                 Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
 -vs-
                                                 Case No. 2022 CA 0084
 BURNES A. LOTTIE, II

          Defendant-Appellant                    OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                       Appeal from the Richland County Court of
                                                 Common Pleas, Case No. 2022-CR-501N

 JUDGMENT:                                       Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                         October 13, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellee                          For Defendant-Appellant

 GARY D. BISHOP                                  WILLIAM T. CRAMER
 Prosecuting Attorney                            470 Olde Worthington Road – Suite #200
 Richland County, Ohio                           Westerville, Ohio 43082

 JODIE SCHUMACHER
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
 38 South Park Street, Second Floor
 Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0084                                                     2

Hoffman, P.J.
       {¶1}   Defendant-appellant Burns A Lottie, II appeals the judgment entered by the

Richland County Common Pleas Court convicting him following jury trial of assault (R.C.

2903.13(A),(C)(4)(a)) and sentencing him to twelve months incarceration.           Plaintiff-

appellee is the state of Ohio.

                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}   On June 6, 2022, Appellant was booked at the Richland County Jail. During

processing, Appellant was in a holding cell, from which he yelled statements he was going

to kill himself. Corrections Officer Zachary Brandt was working in the booking area of the

jail. Officer Brandt began to process Appellant in accordance with the jail policy for a

suicidal person, which required Appellant to take off his clothes, undergo a strip search,

and put on a suicide prevention suit. Appellant was initially cooperative with the process

of removing his clothes. However, when asked to remove his socks, Appellant got into a

fighting stance and told Officer Brandt, “Come take it from me, bitch.” Tr. 175.

       {¶3}   Officer Brandt realized he would need backup, and turned around to call for

help from a male officer due to the fact Appellant was naked. When Officer Brandt opened

the door of the cell, Appellant tried to exit. Officer Brandt placed a hand on Appellant’s

chest to stop Appellant from exiting the cell while naked. Appellant grabbed the officer in

the neck area. Officer Brandt pulled Appellant out of the cell so they would not be locked

inside together, and attempted to take Appellant to the ground. A scuffle ensued, during

which Officer Brandt hit his head on the floor. Officers gained control of Appellant, and

Officer Brandt was taken for treatment. Officer Brandt suffered a laceration on his head

which required four staples to close.
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0084                                                    3

       {¶4}   After the incident, Officer Alec Mills interviewed Appellant. Appellant stated

after Officer Brandt put a hand on him, Appellant struck the officer two times in the face

with a closed fist and put the officer in a chokehold. Appellant stated he thought about

snapping the officer’s neck, but decided not to do so. Appellant stated he behaved in this

manner because he did not like the officer’s attitude.

       {¶5}   Appellant was indicted by the Richland County Grand Jury with one count

of felonious assault as a felony of the second degree, and one count of assault as a felony

of the fifth degree. The case proceeded to jury trial. The jury found Appellant not guilty

of felonious assault, but guilty of assault.     The trial court convicted Appellant in

accordance with the jury’s verdict, and sentenced Appellant to twelve months

incarceration. It is from the November 21, 2022 judgment Appellant prosecutes his

appeal, assigning as error:

              THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO

       PROVIDE A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE LESSER INCLUDED

       OFFENSE OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

       {¶6}   Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his request for a lesser-

included offense instruction on the crime of disorderly conduct.

       {¶7}   A jury charge on a lesser-included offense is required only where the

evidence presented at trial would reasonably support both an acquittal on the crime

charged and a conviction upon the lesser or inferior offense. See, e.g., State v. Thomas,

40 Ohio St.3d 213, 533 N.E.2d 286, paragraph two of the syllabus. In making this
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0084                                                    4

determination, the court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the defendant.

State v. Smith, 89 Ohio St.3d 323, 331, 731 N.E.2d 645 (2000). Nevertheless, an

instruction is not warranted every time any evidence is presented on a lesser-included

offense. There must be sufficient evidence to allow a jury to reasonably reject the greater

offense and find the defendant guilty on a lesser-included offense. State v. Shane, 63

Ohio St.3d at 632-633, 590 N.E.2d 272; State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214, 240, 2006-

Ohio-791, 842 N.E.2d 996, 1027, at ¶ 134.

       {¶8}   When reviewing a trial court's jury instructions, the proper standard of

review for an appellate court is whether the trial court's refusal to give a requested jury

instruction constituted an abuse of discretion under the facts and circumstances of the

case. State v. Miku, 5th Dist. Stark, 2018-Ohio-1584, 111 N.E.3d 558, ¶ 53.

       {¶9}   Appellant was convicted of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), (C)(4)(a):

              (A) No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical

       harm to another or to another's unborn.

              (C) If the offense is committed in any of the following circumstances,

       assault is a felony of the fifth degree:

              (4)The offense occurs in or on the grounds of a local correctional

       facility, the victim of the offense is an employee of the local correctional

       facility or a probation department or is on the premises of the facility for

       business purposes or as a visitor, and the offense is committed by a person

       who is under custody in the facility subsequent to the person's arrest for any

       crime or delinquent act, subsequent to the person's being charged with or
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0084                                                                  5

        convicted of any crime, or subsequent to the person's being alleged to be

        or adjudicated a delinquent child.

        {¶10} Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request

for an instruction on the offense of disorderly conduct as a lesser-included offense of

assault. Disorderly conduct is defined by R.C. 2917.11(A)(1):

                (A)No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or

        alarm to another by doing any of the following:

                (1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property,

        or in violent or turbulent behavior.

        {¶11} Appellant argues viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to him, the

evidence reasonably supported acquittal of assault and conviction of disorderly conduct.

He argues the evidence supported acquittal of assault on the basis Officer Brandt caused

his own head injury when he took Appellant to the ground, while supporting a conviction

for disorderly conduct based on Appellant’s turbulent behavior.

        {¶12} While evidence of Officer Brandt’s head injury was the only evidence

supporting the element of serious physical harm required to support a conviction for the

charge of felonious assault1 of which Appellant was acquitted, we find sufficient evidence

independent of the officer striking his head on the floor during the fight supports the

assault conviction. Appellant admitted to Officer Wells he struck Officer Brandt twice in

1 R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) defines felonious assault as knowingly causing serious physical harm to another.
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0084                                                    6

the face with his closed fist and placed the officer in a chokehold. Appellant admitted he

thought about snapping the officer’s neck. Officer Brandt testified Appellant grabbed him

by the neck. After the officer took Appellant to the ground, striking his head, the officer

was still unable to gain control of Appellant without the aid of other officers. We find the

evidence in the instant case would not support a conviction of disorderly conduct and an

acquittal of assault.

       {¶13} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Richland County

Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur