Court Opinion

ID: 9882423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:09:36.241963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:19.754414
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Murphy, 2023-Ohio-2853.]

                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
              FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                   HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 STATE OF OHIO,                              :   APPEAL NO. C-220512
                                                 TRIAL NO. 20CRB-6154
           Plaintiff-Appellee,               :
                                                      O P I N I O N.
     vs.                                     :

 RYAN MURPHY,                                :

           Defendant-Appellant.              :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 16, 2023

Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting
Attorney, and Joshua Loya, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-
Appellee,

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

W INKLER , Judge.

       {¶1}     Defendant-appellant Ryan Murphy was convicted following a

bench trial of one count of criminal damaging, a misdemeanor of the first

degree under R.C. 2909.06(A)(1). He timely appealed the conviction. For the

reasons below, we affirm the conviction.

                     Facts and Procedural History

       {¶2}     On the morning of March 30, 2021, Murphy and Jay Fisher, his

former landlord, were discussing the return of Murphy’s security deposit

outside of 2423 Ingleside Drive, a rental property owned by Fisher. Murphy

previously had been Fisher’s tenant, but Murphy had moved out in February of

2021, a month before the day in question. Fisher was at the property with a

chainsaw because a first-floor tenant of the property had notified him that a

tree branch needed to be cut down. Fisher had finished cutting the branch and

put the chainsaw on the ground by the time Murphy arrived. After their

discussion, Murphy grabbed the chainsaw, walked about ten feet from where

Fisher was standing, and threw the chainsaw through a first-floor window of

the property.

       {¶3}     At a bench trial in municipal court on October 7, 2022, Fisher

testified that he saw Murphy throw the chainsaw through the window, that the

glass of the double-paned window shattered, and the chainsaw landed inside

the property. A responding police officer testified that he arrived at the scene,

spoke to Fisher, and saw shattered glass and the chainsaw inside the

apartment. Fisher and the officer both testified that there was broken glass

“everywhere,” including both inside and outside of the property. Murphy was

                                            2
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

convicted of first-degree criminal damaging under R.C. 2909.06(A)(1). He

timely appealed.

                                   Analysis

        {¶4}   In his sole assignment of error, Murphy contends that there was

insufficient evidence to prove that his actions created the requisite risk of

physical harm to a person to support a conviction of first-degree criminal

damaging and that his conviction was against the manifest weight of evidence.

        {¶5}   A challenge to the sufficiency of evidence requires an appellate

court to review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to

determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found all the essential

elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Sims, 1st Dist.

Hamilton Nos. C-150252 and C-150253, 2015-Ohio-4996, ¶ 7. Whether the

evidence is sufficient for a conviction is a question of law to be reviewed de

novo.     State v. Ellison,      178 Ohio App.3d 734, 2008-Ohio-5282,

900 N.E.2d 228, , ¶ 9. In deciding whether the evidence is sufficient, an

appellate court does not “resolve evidentiary conflicts nor assess the credibility

of the witness.”     State v. Thomas, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120561,

2013-Ohio-5386, ¶ 45.

        {¶6}   To support a conviction for first-degree criminal damaging

under R.C. 2909.06(A)(1), the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

the defendant knowingly caused or created a substantial risk of physical harm

to the property of another without consent and that the defendant’s actions

created a risk of physical harm to any person. Creating a risk of physical harm

to any person raises a criminal-damaging conviction from a second-degree

misdemeanor to a first-degree misdemeanor.

                                            3
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

          {¶7}   Murphy concedes that he damaged Fisher’s property without

consent when he threw the chainsaw through the window of the rental

property. Therefore, the only issue on appeal is whether the state presented

sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Murphy’s actions

created a risk of physical harm to a person.

          {¶8}   The statutory definitions provide some guidance on what

constitutes a “risk of physical harm to persons.” “Risk” is defined in R.C.

2901.01(A)(7) as “a significant possibility, as contrasted with a remote

possibility, that a certain result may occur or that certain circumstances may

exist.”    The statute does not define “significant possibility” or “remote

possibility.” But R.C. 2901.01(A)(8) defines a “substantial risk” as “a strong

possibility, as contrasted with a remote or significant possibility, that a certain

result may occur or that certain circumstances may exist.”                  Under

R.C. 2901.01(A)(3), “physical harm to persons” can be “any injury, illness, or

other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” Reading

these definitions together, for a court to convict a defendant of first-degree

criminal damaging under R.C. 2909.06(A)(1), the criminal-damaging violation

must create a significant possibility that someone could have been hurt because

of the defendant’s actions, which is more likely than a remote possibility but

less likely than a strong possibility.

          {¶9}   Caselaw provides examples of what actions create a significant

possibility of physical harm to persons. This court and the Second District have

held that when a defendant shatters the glass from a vehicle’s window, the

defendant creates a risk of physical harm to passengers inside the vehicle

necessary to elevate a criminal damaging charge to a first-degree misdemeanor.

                                             4
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Sims, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-150252 and C-150253, 2015-Ohio-4996, at ¶ 9;

State v. Bently, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19743, 2004-Ohio-2740, ¶ 11. The

Tenth District has found that the act of shattering the glass of a car window

when others are standing near the car or touching the car can elevate a

criminal-damaging conviction to a first-degree misdemeanor.              State v.

Davenport, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 18 AP-393 and 18 AP-395, 2019-Ohio-

2297, ¶ 37-38. The Tenth District reasoned in Davenport that the defendant

would have known that someone could be harmed by the shattering glass

because others were in close proximity to the car when the window was

smashed. Id. at ¶ 38.

       {¶10}     During Murphy’s bench trial, Fisher and the responding police

officer testified that the glass from the double-paned window was shattered and

that broken glass was “everywhere.” While there was no testimony as to

whether someone was actually inside the property on the first floor at the

moment the chainsaw shattered the window and landed inside the building,

Fisher testified that he was at the property to cut down a tree branch at the

behest of a first-floor tenant, indicating that there was a person residing on the

first floor when the incident occurred. Because the first floor of the dwelling

was inhabited when the damage occurred, there was a risk that either the

chainsaw or the shattered glass could have physically harmed someone inside

the residence.

       {¶11}     Though there was no testimony at trial to affirmatively prove

that someone was on the first floor of the property near the window at the time

of the incident, a reasonable factfinder could still conclude that Murphy’s

actions created a risk of physical harm to a person. See State v. Mendez, 8th

                                            5
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108527, 2020-Ohio-3031, ¶ 67 (finding sufficient evidence

for first-degree criminal damaging when the doors, walls, and furniture in a

home were broken while the occupants were away from home). Because the

first floor of the property was inhabited, there was a significant possibility that

someone could have been inside the dwelling when the chainsaw was thrown

through the window. Anyone on the first floor at that time would have been at

risk of physical harm from either the flying glass shards or the chainsaw.

Viewing the testimony concerning the first-floor tenant and shattered glass in

a light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable factfinder could

conclude that Murphy’s actions created a risk of potential physical harm to a

person.

       {¶12}    Further,   Murphy’s     conviction   for   first-degree   criminal

damaging was not against the manifest weight of evidence.              Under the

manifest-weight standard, an appellate court must review the entire record and

determine if the trial court clearly lost its way and created a manifest

miscarriage of justice. Sims, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-150252 and C-150253,

2015-Ohio-4996, at ¶ 7 citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678

N.E.2d 541 (1997). An appellate court does not substitute its own judgment for

that of the trier of fact and “[w]here reasonable minds can reach different

conclusions upon conflicting evidence,” the determination of facts rests with

the trier of fact. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 279, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991).

An appellate court will only substitute its judgment on the issue of witness

credibility when “it is patently apparent that the trier of fact lost its way in

arriving at its verdict.” State v. Porter, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200459, 2021-

Ohio-3232, ¶ 25.

                                             6
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶13}   All the essential elements of first-degree criminal damaging

under R.C. 2909.06(A)(1) were presented to the court and supported Murphy’s

conviction. Fisher testified that on the morning of March 30, 2021, he saw

Murphy take the chainsaw and intentionally throw it through one of Fisher’s

first-floor windows, causing the glass from the window to shatter. Fisher

asserted that Murphy did not have his permission to break the glass and that

there had been no damage to the window prior to this incident. As discussed

above, there was also evidence presented at trial that Murphy’s actions created

the risk of physical harm to any person necessary to support a first-degree

designation.

       {¶14}   Fisher was the only eyewitness that testified he saw Murphy

throw the chainsaw through the window. Though the defense noted Fisher’s

age and the year and a half between the day in question, March 30, 2021, and

trial, October 7, 2022, as well as Fisher’s use of eyeglasses at trial, Fisher

asserted that he was able to see and clearly remember the events of March 30,

2021. The trial court found Fisher’s testimony to be reliable. “Because the trier

of fact sees and hears the witnesses and is particularly competent to decide

‘whether, and to what extent, to credit the testimony of particular witnesses,’ ”

an appellate court must give substantial deference to the fact-finder’s

credibility determination. State v. Glover, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180572,

2019-Ohio-5211, ¶ 30, quoting City of Barberton v. Jenney, 126 Ohio St.3d 5,

2010-Ohio-2420, 929 N.E.2d 1047, ¶ 20. After considering the weight of all

the evidence presented at trial, we cannot say that the trial court patently lost

its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice in convicting Murphy of

                                            7
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

first-degree criminal damaging. This is not an exceptional case where the

evidence weighs heavily against conviction.

                                     Conclusion

       {¶15}   After careful review of the record, we hold that there was legally

sufficient evidence to support Murphy’s first-degree criminal damaging

conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and that Murphy’s conviction was not

against the manifest weight of evidence. Accordingly, we overrule Murphy’s

assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                            Judgment affirmed.

C ROUSE , P.J., and Z AYAS , J., concur.

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

                                            8