Court Opinion

ID: 9891668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 14:17:59.648361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:05.043449
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Cleveland v. McCoy, 2023-Ohio-3792.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                            EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

CITY OF CLEVELAND,                               :

                Plaintiff-Appellee,              :
                                                             No. 112287
                v.                               :

LONNIE MCCOY,                                    :

                Defendant-Appellant.             :

                              JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 19, 2023

                     Criminal Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court
                                 Case No. 2022CRB003513

                                           Appearances:

                Mark Griffin, Cleveland Director of Law, Aqueelah
                Jordan, Chief Prosecutor, and Matthew Bezbatchenko,
                Assistant City Prosecutor, for appellee.

                Jones Day and Joseph Shell, for appellant.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J.:

                  Defendant-appellant, Lonnie McCoy, appeals his conviction for

aggravated menacing. For the reasons that follow, this court reverses his conviction

and remands the matter for a new trial.
              On May 11, 2022, the city charged McCoy in a single-count complaint

with aggravated menacing, a first-degree misdemeanor violation of Cleveland

Codified Ordinances (“C.C.O.”) 621.06. On November 29, 2022, following multiple

continuances, the matter proceeded to a bench trial where the court heard the

following testimony from both the victim and McCoy.

              The victim, age 73, testified that he and McCoy were neighbors. He

stated that he had lived in the apartment building for 14 years prior to McCoy

moving into the back, downstairs apartment. The victim stated that he and McCoy

initially engaged in small talk, but any cordiality ceased after he told McCoy to stop

knocking on people’s doors and being loud. According to the victim, McCoy turned

hostile, and would scream at 2:30 a.m. with “little threats,” i.e. stating “you don’t

know who you’re messing with,” “people can lose things, “you don’t know who you’re

meddling with,” and “[the victim] is a crackhead.” (Tr. 10.) The victim testified that

this occurred for approximately 10-11 months even though he had called the police

multiple times. He stated that he obtained a protection order against McCoy

because the “threats were getting outrageous.” (Tr. 12.) Over objection, the city

introduced the protection order that the victim obtained against McCoy in June

2022. The order revealed that victim obtained an ex parte protection order on May

5, 2022 — five days before the incident giving rise to the complaint.

              The victim stated that on May 10, 2022, he returned from the store

and parked in the back of the house. The victim testified that McCoy was standing

inside his doorway “as usual and peeking out of the screen door.” The victim stated
that he saw McCoy waving a gun across his body — “he was waving it across — just

to show me — intimidate me.” (Tr. 17.) He described the gun as having a brown

handle. He admitted, however, that McCoy did not say anything to him at that time,

but that McCoy started yelling once both men were inside each other’s respective

homes. He testified,

      As I said, I don’t know who I’m messing with. He’s the type of person
      he’s patient. He don’t worry about it. He patient. You “B” this. You
      “B” that. You know, you coward this. You coward. He’s patient, and
      he’s gone handle it even though he got to move. He’ll come back here.
      Then you’ll lose things you got.

(Tr. 18.) According to the victim, McCoy made these statements while using a

karaoke machine to ensure that both he and the landlord heard them. The victim

testified that he “felt like my life was in danger cause he was going too far.” (Tr. 18.)

As result, he called the police non-emergency telephone number and made a

complaint. As a result, the police responded and arrested McCoy.

               On cross-examination, the victim admitted that McCoy never pointed

a gun at him and never opened the door or approached him. The defense played a

recording of the victim’s call to the police in which the victim told police that the gun

was in the McCoy’s “waist[band].” The victim clarified that it was in McCoy’s

waistband, but that he pulled it out and waved it across his body.

               The victim admitted further that he had called the police multiple

times before to complain about McCoy, but that the police would only issue McCoy

warnings. He also admitted that McCoy had previously called the police on him.

The victim denied, however, that he wanted McCoy evicted. In fact, he stated that
he did not care if McCoy stayed in the house because he had a protection order

because McCoy “kept threatening his life.” (Tr. 32.) Following the admission of the

city’s exhibit, the city rested its case.

                McCoy, a 68-year-old veteran, testified in his own defense contending

that the victim wanted him evicted because he is a convicted felon who does not have

any rights and because “I don’t count.” (Tr. 47.) He stated that both the victim and

the landlord constantly disrespected him. He emphatically denied that he made any

threats toward the victim or that he brandished a gun, acknowledging that as a

convicted felon, he “can’t have one.” (Tr. 45.) McCoy stated that the police never

recovered any firearm whenever they responded to his home after the victim would

call them to complain and that the police did not discover a firearm when they

arrested him. He stated that he still possessed his veteran housing voucher, which

he found significant because it would have been revoked if there had been any

allegations of violence or being disrespectful. McCoy admitted that he had called

the police on the victim before for harassment.

                Following organized questioning by his counsel, McCoy engaged in a

speech discussing his thoughts about the criminal process, the purpose of the

prosecutor, and the role of the judge. (Tr. 52.) On recross-examination, the

prosecutor asked McCoy whether he attended the June 2022 TPO hearing. McCoy

stated that he did not.

                Following McCoy’s testimony, the court asked defense counsel

“Anything else? I mean, any more witnesses?” Counsel responded “No, your
honor.” (Tr. 60.) The transcript reveals that following this answer, neither the

prosecutor nor McCoy’s defense counsel made any further statements regarding this

case.

                Thereafter, the court engaged in a lengthy conversation with McCoy

about the testimony and facts of the case. The court told McCoy that this case arose

not because he was a felon, but because “it’s more your attitude and your personality

and how you act around people.” (Tr. 62.)

                The trial court stated:

        It’s because you do too much. You don’t need to be knocking on doors.
        You don’t need to be playing your music too loud. You don’t need to be
        doing all of that. It’s a lot of stuff you don’t need to be doing, and so
        that’s why people are looking at you. Nobody would even know that
        you’re a convicted felon unless you tell them, but you doing too much.
        You’re obnoxious. You’re being a jerk, and that’s why they looking at
        you. That’s why they say this guy can’t stay here. He does not know
        how to get along with the residents. He’s doing too much. He’s just —
        he’s annoying. He’s obnoxious and all that. That’s why they don’t want
        you in there.

(Tr. 63.)

                The conversation continued in a back-and-forth manner until McCoy

interjected stating that he did not have a pistol. The court responded,

        It didn’t have to be a pistol. You made him scared, and that’s what it
        was, so whatever it was, I don’t care if it was a hammer. Whatever it
        was, it looked like a gun to him. You had something. * * * You wanted
        him to see it, and I believe it. * * * I’m not saying it was a gun. He saw
        something. * * * You wanted him to see it.

(Tr. 65-66.)

                The exchange between the court and McCoy ended with the court

finding McCoy guilty and immediately imposing a sentence.
      I don’t need you to say anything else. It’s trial had. It’s found guilty.
      You need to know — you need to act right. * * * It’s $1,000. 180 days.
      Sentence its suspended. It’s one-year active probation. Leave him
      alone. Leave everybody alone. You don’t know how to conduct
      yourself.

(Tr. 66.)

              Following the verdict and sentence, McCoy again stated that he did

not have a pistol. The court responded,

      Did I say you had a pistol? I said you had something that gave him the
      idea that you were going to do him harm. They don’t have to prove that
      it was a gun. That’s beside the point. That is not an element that you
      had — to prove that you had a gun.

(Tr. 67.) Again, neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel made any further

statements about the evidence presented or made any statements in support or in

mitigation of sentence.

              McCoy now appeals, raising four assignments of error.

I.   The Appeal

      A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

              The test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the

prosecution met its burden of production at trial. State v. Cottingham, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 109100, 2020-Ohio-4220, ¶ 32. 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. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541

(1997). 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. Id.

               McCoy contends in his first assignment of error that the city

presented insufficient evidence that the victim believed that he would cause the

victim serious physical harm.

               The city charged McCoy with aggravated menacing under C.C.O.

621.06(a), which provides that “[n]o person shall knowingly cause another to believe

that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of such

other person or member of his or her immediate family.” C.C.O 601.01(e) defines

“serious physical harm” to include:

      (1) any mental illness or condition of such gravity as would normally
      require hospitalization or prolonged psychiatric treatment; (2) any
      physical harm that carries a substantial risk of death; (3) any physical
      harm that involves some permanent incapacity, whether partial or
      total, or that involves some temporary, substantial incapacity; (4) any
      physical harm that involves some permanent disfigurement or that
      involves some temporary, serious disfigurement; [or] (5) any physical
      harm that involves acute pain of such duration as to result in
      substantial suffering or that involves any degree of prolonged or
      intractable pain.

Serious physical harm to property is defined as any physical harm to property that

either, “(1) results in substantial loss to the value of the property or requires a

substantial amount of time, effort, or money to repair or replace; [or] (2)

temporarily prevents the use or enjoyment of the property or substantially interferes

with its use or enjoyment for an extended period of time.” C.C.O. 601.01(f).
               Under C.C.O. 601.07(b), “[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.”

               “In order to convict [a defendant] of aggravated menacing, the city

was required to present evidence of the victim’s subjective belief of [his] fear of

serious physical harm.” Cleveland v. Ruiz, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106743, 2018-

Ohio-4604, ¶ 7; see also In re Amos, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-04-07, 2004-Ohio-

7037, ¶ 21-23; In re Fugate, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP-1195, 2002-Ohio-2771. It

is not an element of the offense of aggravated menacing that the offender either

intends to carry out his threat or that he is even able to carry it out. State v. Perkins,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86685, 2006-Ohio-3678, ¶ 14, citing Dayton v. Dunnigan,

103 Ohio App.3d 67, 71, 658 N.E.2d 806 (2d Dist.1995). In fact, even a conditional

threat can constitute a violation of the menacing laws. Perkins at id.; citing State v.

Collie, 108 Ohio App.3d 580, 582, 671 N.E.2d 338 (1st Dist.1996); see also State v.

Padgett, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19590, 2003-Ohio-6242, ¶ 84.

               McCoy relies on this court’s decision in Garfield Hts. v. Geer, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87078, 2006-Ohio-5936 to support his argument that the city

failed to establish the victim’s subjective belief at the time of the offense that McCoy

would cause him serious physical harm. In Greer, this court found that the evidence

presented by the city did not establish that the victim subjectively believed at the

time of the offense that Greer would cause the victim physical harm. Greer involved
a road rage incident. The victim testified that Greer had driven past him, braked

abruptly twice, and brandished a gun. The victim testified that he did not know

Greer, did not know if the gun was real, and did not otherwise testify that Greer’s

actions scared or rattled him. This court found the evidence was insufficient to

prove that Greer’s actions caused the victim to believe that Greer would cause him

serious physical harm because the victim offered no testimony as “to any subjective

belief that [the defendant] would cause [the victim] serious physical harm.” Greer

is factually distinguishable.

               In this case, McCoy was not a stranger to the victim; they had been

neighbors for over a year. During that time, the victim stated that McCoy had made

“little threats” to the victim, but the threats became increasingly “outrageous,” to the

point that the victim obtained an ex parte protection order just five days prior to the

incident. Regarding the incident, the victim testified that he saw McCoy standing in

the doorway of his apartment, and then waving a firearm across his body. The victim

stated that McCoy’s conduct intimidated him even though McCoy did not approach

him, point the weapon at him, or say anything threatening toward him at that

moment. (Tr. 17.) Additionally, once the victim was inside of his apartment, he

heard McCoy making what the victim regarded as threats. McCoy acted knowingly

because, according to the victim, he used a karaoke microphone and speaker, which

would ensure that the victim and others would hear his statements, which included,

“He’s patient, and he’s gone handle it even though he got to move. He’ll come back

here. Then you’ll lose things you got.” (Tr. 18.) The victim testified that based on
McCoy’s action and statements, he “felt like [his] life was in danger cause he was

going too far,” and thus, he called the police. Accordingly, unlike in Greer, some

evidence was presented where the victim had a subjective belief that serious physical

harm would result from the defendant’s actions.

               Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the city, sufficient

evidence was presented supporting McCoy’s conviction for aggravated menacing.

The first assignment of error is overruled.

      B. Manifest Weight of the Evidence

               Although an appellate court may determine that a judgment of a trial

court is sustained by sufficient evidence, that court may nevertheless conclude that

the judgment is against the weight of the evidence. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at

387, 678 N.E.2d 541, citing State v. Robinson, 162 Ohio St. 486, 487, 124 N.E.2d 148

(1955); State v. Gatson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90268, 2009-Ohio-120, ¶ 25. In his

second assignment of error, McCoy contends that his aggravated menacing

conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

               “Weight of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater

amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather

than the other. * * * Weight is not a question of mathematics, but depends on its

effect in inducing belief.’” Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179,

972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 12, quoting Thompkins at 387.

               In our manifest weight review of a bench trial verdict, we recognize

that the trial court serves as the factfinder, and not the jury. State v. Travis, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110514, 2022-Ohio-1233, ¶ 28, citing State v. Crenshaw, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108830, 2020-Ohio-4922, ¶ 23. “When considering whether a

judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence in a bench trial, an appellate

court will not reverse a conviction where the trial court could reasonably conclude

from substantial evidence that the state has proved the offense beyond a reasonable

doubt.” State v. Tranovich, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2008-09-242, 2009-Ohio-

2338, ¶ 7. To warrant reversal from a bench trial under a manifest weight of the

evidence claim, this court must determine that “the trial court clearly lost its way

and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be

reversed and a new trial ordered.” Crenshaw at ¶ 23; see also Thompkins. The

discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in exceptional cases

where the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. Thompkins at 386.

              This court finds that this case is one of those exceptional cases were a

new trial should be ordered because the weight of the evidence demonstrates that

the trial court lost its way in finding McCoy guilty of aggravated menacing. Although

sufficient evidence was presented to support that McCoy’s conduct caused the victim

to believe that McCoy would cause him serious physical harm, the victim’s own

conduct and responses reveal that McCoy’s conviction is against the manifest weight

of the evidence. We make this finding in conjunction with finding merit to McCoy’s

third assignment of error in which he contends that the trial court deprived him of

the opportunity to make a closing argument.
               The victim testified that he saw McCoy standing behind a closed

screen-door in his own apartment and wave, what appeared to him to be a gun,

across his body. He admitted that McCoy did not point the gun at him, threaten him

with the gun, or make any movements toward him with the gun. The victim

admitted that he did not return to his car and retreat from the scene, but he

continued walking to his upstairs apartment. He testified that it was after he was

inside of his own apartment when he heard McCoy making loud threatening

statements — much like the “little” threats McCoy had previously made for the past

10-11 months. According to the victim, this caused him to call the non-emergency

police dispatch number, because McCoy “was going too far.” Despite the victim

feeling “like [his] life was in danger,” he did not call 911. During trial, the victim

denied that his motivation to call the police was to get McCoy evicted, stating that

he did not care if McCoy continued living there because he “had a protection order.”

Based on the foregoing, the victim’s actions and responses were not of a person who

has a subjective belief that McCoy was going to cause him serious physical harm.

Compare Greer, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87078, 2006-Ohio-5936, at ¶ 10 (actions

did not constitute subjective belief that defendant was going to cause victim serious

physical harm where the defendant merely flashed a gun, victim did not retreat from

the scene, or call the police until the victim arrived home).

               At best, the weight of the evidence reveals that McCoy’s conduct could

have amounted to the lesser offense of menacing or even disorderly conduct. Such

inference is supported by the trial court’s own conclusions in its colloquy with
McCoy. The trial court found that he was a “jerk,” “obnoxious,” “not acting right,”

and “bothering people.” Additionally, the court further found that whether McCoy

had a gun was irrelevant because his conduct caused the victim to be “scared” and

to believe McCoy would cause “him harm.” The crime of aggravated menacing,

however, requires more than just fear and harm, it requires a belief of “serious

physical harm.” Accordingly, the presence of the firearm would be entirely relevant.

               Whether McCoy’s conduct amounted to a lesser-included offense of

aggravated menacing may be raised by the parties during trial, and specifically, at

the close of evidence, often during closing argument. In this case, the trial court did

not afford the prosecutor nor defense counsel the opportunity to present any

summation before or after the finding of guilt and sentencing.           In his third

assignment of error, McCoy contends that the trial court’s conduct deprived him of

due process and a fair trial.

               The United States Supreme Court has held that a statute permitting a

trial judge to deny a criminal defendant closing argument denies “the basic right of

the accused to make his defense” in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United

States Constitution. Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 859, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 45

L.Ed.2d 593(1975). Thus, a trial court is not permitted to totally deny a criminal

defendant the opportunity to present a closing argument whether his trial is to a jury

or to the bench. Id.

               However, the right to present a closing argument may be waived.

State v. McCausland, 124 Ohio St.3d 8, 2009-Ohio-5933, 918 N.E.2d 507, ¶ 7
(declining to extend Herring to create a presumption against waiver).             The

McCausland Court held that such a waiver need not be express, intentional, and

voluntary, id. at ¶ 8-10, but rather, “[a] criminal defendant waives the Sixth

Amendment right to present a closing argument when he or she neither requests a

closing argument nor objects to its omission.” Id. at syllabus.

              The city contends that McCoy waived the right to make a closing

argument because he did not object, but also that his lengthy engagement with the

trial court constituted an opportunity to present his theory of the case. While McCoy

and the trial court engaged in a colloquy, McCoy at all times was represented by

counsel, and this court has repeatedly held that a defendant is not entitled to hybrid

representation. It is well established that a criminal defendant has the right to

counsel or the right to act pro se; however, a defendant does not have the right to

both, simultaneously, or hybrid representation. See, e.g. State v. Williams, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 109972, 2021-Ohio-2032, ¶ 15; see also State v. Hackett, 164 Ohio

St.3d 74, 2020-Ohio-6699, 172 N.E.3d 75. Accordingly, even if McCoy engaged in

an exchange with the trial court following his testimony, such exchange is not a

substitution for his counsel to present closing arguments.

              The trial court did not afford either party the opportunity to make a

closing statement. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the trial court also

did not afford either party an opportunity to offer any arguments in support or

mitigation of sentencing. More importantly, the trial court deprived McCoy his right
to allocution prior to sentencing.1        Compare McCausland (waiver of closing

argument found where a pause in the proceedings occurred prior to rendering a

verdict and a discussion occurred with counsel prior to sentencing).

               Even if this court found that McCoy waived the issue on appeal by

failing to request closing argument or making an objection, this court would find

that plain error exists warranting a new trial. It is clear that the trial court lost sight

of the elements of the offense by focusing on McCoy’s personality and attitude, even

recommending at one point that he needed to attend “charm school.” Closing

argument would have allowed McCoy’s counsel the opportunity to bring the focus

back to McCoy’s conduct giving rise to the case, not his conduct in the courtroom.

Moreover, closing argument would have allowed counsel an opportunity to request

any lesser-included offense based on the evidence presented.

               As explained by the United States Supreme Court in Herring:

       It can hardly be questioned that closing argument serves to sharpen
       and clarify the issues for resolution by the trier of fact in a criminal case.

       1 Crim.R. 32(A)(1), requires a court at sentencing to “address the defendant
personally and ask if he or she wishes to make a statement in his or her own behalf or
present any information in mitigation of punishment.” This rule “‘unambiguously
require[s] that an offender be given an opportunity for allocution whenever a trial court
imposes a sentence at a sentencing hearing.’” State v. Jackson, 150 Ohio St.3d 362, 2016-
Ohio-8127, 81 N.E.3d 1237, ¶ 9-10, quoting State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 738
N.E.2d 1178 (2000), paragraph one of the syllabus. The genesis of this rule is the common
law right of allocution. See, e.g., Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 304, 81 S.Ct. 653,
5 L.Ed.2d 670 (1961). This inquiry “is much more than an empty ritual: it represents a
defendant’s last opportunity to plead his case or express remorse.” State v. Green, 90
Ohio St.3d 352, 359-360, 738 N.E.2d 1208 (2000). The right, which cannot be waived,
applies to both felony and misdemeanor convictions. Cleveland v. Amoroso, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 100983, 2015-Ohio-95, ¶ 58.
      For it is only after all the evidence is in that counsel for the parties are
      in a position to present their respective versions of the case as a whole.
      Only then can they argue the inferences to be drawn from all the
      testimony, and point out the weaknesses of their adversaries’ positions.
      And for the defense, closing argument is the last clear chance to
      persuade the trier of fact that there may be reasonable doubt of the
      defendant's guilt.

Id. at 862. In this case, that opportunity was completely denied. Accordingly, based

on our conclusion regarding the weight of the evidence and the trial court’s failure

to afford him an opportunity to present any argument following the close of

evidence, this court finds that McCoy was deprived of due process and a fair trial,

such that his conviction for aggravated menacing must be reversed and remand for

a new trial ordered. McCoy’s second and third assignments of error are sustained.

               Having reversed McCoy’s convictions under assignments of error two

and three, his argument challenging the effective assistance of counsel under his

fourth assignment of error is rendered moot. See App.R. 12(A)(2).

               Judgment reversed and remanded for a new trial.

      It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

Cleveland Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded

to the trial court for further proceedings.
      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, PRESIDING JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCURS;
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY (WITH
SEPARATE OPINION)

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCURRING IN JUDGMENT ONLY:

              Respectfully, I concur in judgment only.        I fully agree with the

majority’s analysis and determination that the state presented sufficient evidence

for McCoy’s offense of aggravated menacing. I further agree with the majority’s

conclusion under a plain error review that his conviction should nonetheless be

reversed. A detailed review of the trial transcript reflects that counsel was not

afforded an opportunity to object or present closing argument before sentencing,

which would have allowed counsel to contest the state’s allegation that McCoy’s

conduct during the incident rose to the level of aggravated menacing.

              I, however, do not find this case warrants an exercise of our power to

reverse a conviction based on a manifest-weight challenge. An appellate court will

reverse a conviction based on such a challenge only when, after weighing the

evidence and considering the credibility of witnesses, it determines that the trier of

fact, in resolving conflicts in evidence, “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. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). “The

discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional

case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Id. “An appellate

court will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of the evidence only in

extraordinary circumstances where the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily

against the conviction.” State v. Taylor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110596, 2022-Ohio-

614, ¶ 68.

                The evidence in this case consists only of appellant’s and the victim’s

testimony. It is a case of “he said, he said” and turns entirely on the credibility of

these two witnesses. My review of the transcript indicates the trial court was

especially patient with appellant and allowed him to speak freely and at great length

before determining his credibility and finding him guilty. In my view, this case

presents a close question regarding the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence

does not weigh heavily in favor of acquittal. Therefore, I do not find the trial court,

as the trier of fact in this bench trial, “clearly lost its way” in believing the victim over

appellant. This is not an exceptional case for us to invoke the power to reverse on a

manifest-weight claim. For this reason, I concur in judgment only.