Court Opinion

ID: 9943198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 20:09:06.792275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:27.267863
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Porterfield, 2024-Ohio-673.]

                                         COURT OF APPEALS
                                      ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO,                                   :    JUDGES:
                                                 :    Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        Plaintiff - Appellee                     :    Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
                                                 :    Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs-                                             :
                                                 :
RICKY PORTERFIELD,                               :    Case No. 23-COA-007
                                                 :
        Defendant - Appellant                    :    OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                              Appeal from the Ashland Muncipal
                                                      Court, Case No. 2022 CRB 01267

JUDGMENT:                                             Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                     February 21, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                                For Defendant-Appellant

RICHARD WOLFE                                         WESLEY A. JOHNSTON
DAVID HUNTER                                          203 N. Broadway Street
City of Ashland Law Department                        Medina, Ohio 44256
124 Church St.
Ashland, Ohio 44805
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-007                                                  2

Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}   The appellant, Ricky Porterfield, appeals his conviction and sentence

entered in the Ashland Municipal Court. The appellee is the State of Ohio. The relevant

facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

                        STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶2}   On November 23, 2022, law enforcement officers arrested the appellant for

Obstructing Official Business in violation of R.C. §2921.31 and Criminal Trespass in

violation of R.C. §2911.21(A)(1).

       {¶3}   On April 19, 2023, the matter proceeded to a bench trial.

       {¶4}   At trial, Officer Sarnis testified that on November 23, 2022, he came into

contact with the appellant while investigating an OVI complaint in the City of Ashland.

While speaking with the driver of the vehicle, the appellant approached Officer Sarnis and

began inquiring about the stop.

       {¶5}   The appellant was standing on the gravel driveway of a residence that was

not his. The appellant repeatedly asked the officer to perform the field sobriety tests he

just made the driver perform.

       {¶6}   Officer Sarnis attempted to resume the field sobriety tests on the driver, but

the appellant continued to interrupt. Officer Sarnis and Officer Lifer asked the appellant

to back away from the investigation and leave the property on which he was standing.

Officers told the appellant three times to get off the property and to stand on the sidewalk

to record them. However, he remained on the property. Officer Sarnis attempted to

identify the appellant, but the appellant refused to provide identification. He stated he
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-007                                                   3

wanted to speak with the arresting officer or the chief of police. So, Officer Sarnis arrested

the appellant, found his identification and verified he did not live on the property he was

standing.

       {¶7}   The appellant’s refusal to cooperate with Officer Sarnis and his continuous

interruptions impeded Officer Sarnis and Officer Lifer from being able to investigate an

OVI. The State of Ohio then played a video recording of the encounter for the trial court.

       {¶8}   Next, Officer Lifer testified that after Officer Sarnis completed the field

sobriety tests he spoke with the driver in the back of his car. While he was trying to carry

on a conversation with the driver, the appellant started asking Officer Sarnis questions,

interrupting the investigation. Officer Lifer answered the appellant’s questions and warned

him to stand further away to record the stop as he was obstructing the traffic stop.

       {¶9}   Initially, the appellant complied. Then, while Officer Lifer searched the

driver’s car, the appellant approached the investigation and had interrupted again. Officer

Lifer had to secure objects Officer Sarnis set on the ground for the driver to go with her,

as the appellant had interrupted the traffic stop.

       {¶10} At the close of evidence, the trial court found the appellant guilty on one

count of Obstructing Official Business in violation of R.C. §2921.31 and acquitted the

appellant of the Criminal Trespass charge.

       {¶11} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and raised the following Assignment

of Error:

       {¶12} “I. CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE

EVIDENCE.”
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-007                                                 4

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶13} The appellant contends his conviction is against the manifest weight of the

evidence. In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, the court of appeals functions as the “thirteenth juror,” and after “reviewing the

entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility

of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must

be overturned and a new trial ordered.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678

N.E.2d 541, 547 (1997) quoting State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 20 OBR

215, 219, 485 N.E.2d 717, 720-721. Reversing a conviction as being against the manifest

weight of the evidence and ordering a new trial should be reserved for only the

“exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Id. See

State v. Acker, 5th Dist. Holmes No. 22CA008, 2023-Ohio-2085, ¶36.

       {¶14} The trial court’s decision should not be disturbed as against the manifest

weight of the evidence if the decision is supported by some competent and credible

evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578

(1978). A reviewing court should not reverse a decision simply because it holds a different

opinion concerning the credibility of the witnesses and evidence submitted before the trial

court. Geary v. Geary, 5th Dist. Delaware, 2015-Ohio-259, 27 N.E.3d 877.

                                        ANALYSIS

       {¶15} In his first Assignment of Error, the appellant contends that his conviction is

against the manifest weight of the evidence because he alleges he did not obstruct official

business. We disagree.
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-007                                                      5

       {¶16} R.C. §2921.31(A) states:

              No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent,

       obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act

       within the public official’s capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes

       a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

       {¶17} The court in State v. Moss, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28986, 2018 WL 625 1316,

2018-Ohio-4747, addressed the crime of obstructing official business stating:

       …a suspect may indeed obstruct official business when he creates a

       significant delay by ignoring an officer’s repeated orders, thereby impeding

       the officer’s ability to perform his lawful duties. See State v. Woodson, 9th

       Dist. Wayne No. 07CA0044, 2008-Ohio-1469, 2008 WL 835835, ¶27; State

       v. Vintson, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 06CA009066, 2007-Ohio-6141, 2007 WL

       4083457, ¶27. Rather than viewing the suspect’s actions in isolation, the

       total course of his conduct must be considered. State v. Overholt, 9th Dist.

       Medina No. 2905-M, 1999 WL 635717, *1-2 (Aug. 18, 1999). Multiple

       affirmative acts that go beyond a single act of simply not producing

       identification-such as shouting and repeatedly answering police questions

       posed to a different individual, despite several warnings to refrain from such

       conduct-may constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction for

       obstructing official business. See Reichbaum, 112 Ohio App.3d at 84, 677

       N.E.2d 1245.

       {¶18} In the case sub judice, the appellant engaged in multiple affirmative acts

that resulted in the obstruction of official business charge. The appellant repeatedly asked
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-007                                                  6

the officers if they could perform the field sobriety tests after Officer Lifer answered him,

the appellant returned to interrupt the investigation after being asked to record from a

position that did not interfere, the appellant refused to obey the officers instructions to

remove himself from someone else’s property, and interrupted the interview of the driver

and search of the vehicle forcing officers to arrest him and have to wait on a third officer

to arrive on scene to finish the investigation into the OVI.

       {¶19} We find that, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the

prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the

appellant committed the essential elements of obstructing official business.

       {¶20} Accordingly, the appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.

                                      CONCLUSION

       {¶21} The judgment of the Ashland Municipal Court, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

King, J. concur.