Court Opinion

ID: 9954141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 18:11:03.994896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:51.416938
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Redden, 2024-Ohio-1088.]

                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                          TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                             BUTLER COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

        Appellee,                                  :     CASE NO. CA2023-09-106

                                                   :          OPINION
     - vs -                                                    3/25/2024
                                                   :

 MICHAEL K. REDDEN,                                :

        Appellant.                                 :

                CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT
                              Case No. CRB2301790

Laura R. Gibson, City of Hamilton Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Luftman, Heck & Associates, LLP, and Juliea S. Crumes, for appellant.

        M. POWELL, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Michael Redden, appeals his conviction in the Hamilton

Municipal Court for domestic violence.

        {¶ 2} Redden and Bridget Langen are the unmarried parents of a young child.

Redden and Langen resided together until May 23, 2023, when Langen moved out. On

July 7, 2023, Langen drove to Redden's home to pick up their child. As Langen sat in her
                                                                    Butler CA2023-09-106

car buckling the child's seatbelt, Redden leaned into the driver-side window and grabbed

Langen's cellphone. Redden claimed the cellphone belonged to him as he had paid for

it and Langen had refused his many requests to return it. Upset, Langen got out of her

car and chased Redden around the yard. Redden ran to the back of his home and

entered his home through a sliding glass door to get away from Langen. Angry, Langen

tore Redden's outdoor television from the patio wall. Redden returned to the back door

to see if his children, who remained outside, were in danger. As Redden stood at the

sliding glass door, he and Langen yelled at each other. Langen punched the glass door,

Redden opened the door to prevent further banging, and Langen tried to push her way

inside. She was eventually successful. During their scuffle inside the house, Redden

held Langen in a bear hug to prevent her from swinging at him or breaking things; Langen

bit and punched Redden. Langen eventually left the home on her own and reported the

incident to the Ross Police Department. Langen suffered a bruise and scrape on her right

arm, a scrape on her left knee, and bruises on the back of a leg.

       {¶ 3} Redden was charged with domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25, a

first-degree misdemeanor. Redden pled not guilty and the matter proceeded to a bench

trial before Attorney Harry Zornow, a magistrate/acting judge. A police officer and Langen

testified on behalf of the state; Redden moved the trial court for acquittal at the close of

the state's case-in-chief. The trial court denied Redden's motion for acquittal; Redden

and his teenage daughter then testified on his behalf. The trial court found Redden guilty

of domestic violence and sentenced him to 30 days in jail with 23 days suspended and

credit for 3 days served, two years of community control, anger management and

domestic violence classes, and no contact with Langen. Although the case was heard by

Attorney Zornow as magistrate/acting judge, the sentencing entry was signed by Judge

Daniel Gattermeyer. The entry also incorrectly stated that Redden pled guilty to domestic

                                             -2-
                                                                   Butler CA2023-09-106

violence.

      {¶ 4} Redden now appeals, raising three assignments of error.

      {¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:

      {¶ 6} MR. REDDEN'S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONVICTION WAS NOT

SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

      {¶ 7} Redden challenges his domestic violence conviction, arguing there was

insufficient evidence he knowingly caused Langen physical harm.

      {¶ 8} "A sufficiency of the evidence argument disputes whether the state has

presented adequate evidence on each element of the offense to allow the case to go to

the jury or sustain the verdict as a matter of law." State v. Armstrong-Carter, 2d Dist.

Montgomery Nos. 28571 and 28576, 2021-Ohio-1110, ¶ 37, citing State v. Thompkins,

78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 1997-Ohio-52. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence

underlying a criminal conviction, an appellate court examines the evidence to determine

whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State v. Krieger, 12th

Dist. Warren No. CA2017-12-167, 2018-Ohio-4483, ¶ 13.            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.; State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the

syllabus. "'Proof beyond a reasonable doubt' is proof of such character that an ordinary

person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most important of the person's own

affairs." R.C. 2901.05(E). "[A] reversal based on insufficient evidence leads to an

acquittal that bars a retrial." State v. Gideon, 165 Ohio St.3d 156, 2020-Ohio-6961, ¶ 27.

      {¶ 9} Redden was convicted of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A),

which provides that "[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm

to a family or household member."

                                            -3-
                                                                   Butler CA2023-09-106

      {¶ 10} "A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware

that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a

certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that

such circumstances probably exist."      R.C. 2901.22(B).     Based on the definition of

"knowingly," the state is not required to prove the defendant intended to cause physical

injuries to support a conviction for domestic violence. State v. Agnew, 12th Dist. Butler

No. CA2022-12-118, 2024-Ohio-295, ¶ 43. When determining whether a defendant acted

knowingly, it is the defendant's state of mind and perception that are measured, not an

objective reasonable expectation.      Krieger, 2018-Ohio-4483 at ¶ 15.        Whether a

defendant acts knowingly can be determined from all the surrounding facts and

circumstances, including the doing of the act itself. State v. Robinson, 12th Dist. Fayette

No. CA2005-11-029, 2007-Ohio-354, ¶ 18.

      {¶ 11} After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court erred in convicting

Redden of domestic violence because there is insufficient evidence to prove that Redden

knowingly caused Langen physical harm.

      {¶ 12} The evidence at trial shows that Langen repeatedly tried to push her way

inside the house, eventually becoming successful, while Redden tried to keep her out. A

video recording of a portion of the incident shows Langen trying to crawl sideways inside

the house past Redden as the sliding door is partially open and Redden is standing in the

doorway. Langen never disputed that she persistently tried to force her way inside the

house. The evidence at trial indicates that Langen sustained bruises on the back of her

leg and the bruise and scrape on her right arm during the parties' scuffle at the sliding

glass door when she was trying to force her way inside the house and Redden was trying

to keep her out of the house and close the door. As Langen explained, "my arm just kind

of slid across [the lock on the sliding glass door] as it was being shut." The evidence

                                             -4-
                                                                   Butler CA2023-09-106

further indicates she sustained a scrape on her knee when she fell in the yard chasing

Redden.

      {¶ 13} The record demonstrates that Redden came into physical contact with

Langen when she persistently tried to push her way inside the house and he tried to block

her from entering the house and close the door, and that Redden's actions were solely

motivated by his need to keep Langen out of the house. The state presented no evidence

that Redden tried to block Langen or held her in a bear hug once inside the house to

cause or attempt to cause her physical harm or that Redden was subjectively aware that

harming Langen was probable based on the way he tried to block her or held her in a

bear hug.

      {¶ 14} The evidence, even when viewed in a light most favorable to the

prosecution, establishes that Redden's only intent on the day of the incident was to keep

a determined and angry Langen from entering the house, and once inside, to prevent her

from breaking things or hitting him. Redden did not, however, knowingly cause or attempt

to cause Langen physical harm. As such, Redden's conviction is not supported by

sufficient evidence, and his first assignment of error is sustained. Redden's conviction is

reversed, his sentence is vacated, and he is discharged accordingly.

      {¶ 15} Assignment of Error No. 2:

      {¶ 16} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BECAUSE SAID CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE

MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

      {¶ 17} Assignment of Error No. 3:

      {¶ 18} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT

MADE AWARE OF THE TITLE OF THE TRIER OF FACT.

      {¶ 19} In his second assignment of error, Redden argues his conviction for

                                             -5-
                                                                   Butler CA2023-09-106

domestic violence is against the manifest weight of the evidence because the state failed

to prove he knowingly caused Langen physical harm. In his third assignment of error,

Redden argues that the trial court erred in allowing Zornow, an attorney, to hear the case

as either a magistrate or acting judge without requiring the necessary waivers. Because

of our resolution of Redden's first assignment of error, his second and third assignments

of error are moot and need not be considered. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c); Goebel v. Hopkins,

12th Dist. Warren No. CA2023-06-044, 2024-Ohio-194, ¶ 30.

      {¶ 20} Judgment reversed, and Redden is discharged.

      S. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.

                                            -6-