Court Opinion

ID: 9953617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 15:10:14.527312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:25.405347
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Barber, 2024-Ohio-1043.]

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

 STATE OF OHIO,                                       :   APPEAL NO. C-230473
                                                          TRIAL NO. 23CRB-13844
      Plaintiff-Appellee,                             :
                                                             O P I N I O N.
   vs.                                                :

 MARLON BARBER,                                       :

      Defendant-Appellant.                            :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 22, 2024

Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney,
and Connor E. Wood, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Schuh & Goldberg, LLP, and Brian T. Goldberg, for Defendant-Appellant.
                       OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

KINSLEY, Judge.

        {¶1}     Defendant-appellant Marlon1 Barber appeals from the trial court’s

judgment convicting him, after a bench trial, of assault. In his sole assignment of

error, Barber challenges the sufficiency and weight of his conviction. Because Barber

raises matters as to the credibility of a witness, which were best resolved by the

factfinder, and because the state presented sufficient evidence of the assault, including

both testimony and physical evidence, we overrule Barber’s assignment of error and

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                          Factual and Procedural Background

        {¶2}    Barber was charged with assault and domestic violence on August 10,

2023. The victim was K.B., Barber’s romantic partner since 2018. The case proceeded

to a bench trial on September 7, 2023.

        {¶3}    K.B. testified at trial. She and Barber had been together since 2018, but

they began living together in 2021. In the early morning hours of August 10, 2023,

K.B. awoke to Barber yelling at her for allegedly locking him out. According to K.B.,

Barber then pushed her down each time she tried to get out of bed and started hitting

her on the head. Barber then threw her to the ground by her hair and kicked her as

she was on the ground. Barber spent the night on the couch like he usually did. K.B.

did not call the police that night or try to escape out of fear of what Barber would do

in response.

        {¶4}    She further testified that Barber dropped her off at work later that

morning, and she called the police from there. Barber was arrested in the parking lot

1 Though Barber is referred to as “Marion Barber” in some documents, we use the spelling in his
briefing, “Marlon.”

                                                  2
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

of K.B.’s workplace when officers discovered Barber had an outstanding warrant.

Officers took pictures of K.B.’s injuries that same day. She had a visible eye clot and

bruising on her forehead and right forearm.

       {¶5}   On cross-examination, K.B. was questioned as to the differences in her

written statement to the police on the date of the incident and her trial testimony. In

her written statement, she said Barber strangled her. But at trial, she testified he

struck her multiple times, pulled her hair, and kicked her.

       {¶6}   Officer Noah Reinhart testified to what Barber told him on arrest.

Barber claimed that if K.B. had any injuries, they were from a prior altercation that

took place between K.B. and Barber in Columbus.

       {¶7}   At the close of the state’s case, Barber moved for an acquittal under

Crim.R. 29, which the trial court denied.

       {¶8}   In his testimony at trial, Barber maintained that K.B.’s injuries were

from a prior altercation in Columbus around August 7, 2023. According to Barber,

K.B. had attacked him on more than one occasion while they were in Columbus for

K.B.’s work conference and that was why she was photographed with injuries days

later on August 10, 2023. Barber further testified that there was no altercation that

occurred in the early morning hours of August 10, 2023, and that there was no

animosity between him and K.B. when he dropped her off at work.

       {¶9}   In making its findings, the trial court reasoned that this case came down

to the issue of credibility. The trial court found K.B. to be more credible. The trial

court did not find it unusual that there were a few inconsistencies between K.B.’s

written statement and courtroom testimony, given the violent nature of the allegations

against Barber. Further, the trial court found it was important that there were photos

                                              3
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

of K.B.’s injuries taken contemporaneously with her interview on the date of the

incident.

       {¶10} The trial court found Barber guilty of assault but not of domestic

violence. The trial court concluded that the state had not proven beyond a reasonable

doubt that K.B. and Barber were family or household members as required under

Ohio’s domestic violence statute. Barber was sentenced to 180 days of incarceration.

       {¶11} He now appeals.

                                Sufficiency and Weight

       {¶12} In a single assignment of error, Barber raises sufficiency and weight

challenges to his misdemeanor assault conviction. In doing so, Barber argues that

both parties admitted to a prior altercation in Columbus, there were inconsistencies

with K.B.’s story, and K.B. did not call the police after Barber attacked her in her

bedroom.

       {¶13} To determine whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence,

we inquire “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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574

N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus; see State v. Curry, 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-190107, 2020-Ohio-1230, ¶ 11.

       {¶14} But when reviewing a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence,

we sit as a “thirteenth juror.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 388, 678 N.E.2d

541 (1997). Unlike our review of a sufficiency challenge, review of a manifest-weight

challenge requires us to independently “review the entire record, weigh the evidence,

consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the trier of fact clearly

                                                4
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Powell, 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-190508, 2020-Ohio-4283, ¶ 16, citing Thompkins at 397. However,

we will reverse the trial court’s decision to convict and grant a new trial only in

“ ‘exceptional cases in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.’ ”

State v. Sipple, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190462, 2021-Ohio-1319, ¶ 7, quoting State

v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983).

       {¶15} To prove misdemeanor assault under R.C. 2903.13(A), the state must

demonstrate that Barber knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to K.B.

See State v. Baker, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120470 and C-120471, 2013-Ohio-2507, ¶ 10.

The state presented sufficient evidence on these elements at trial. K.B. identified Barber

as the person who caused her physical injuries, and she described numerous acts he took

to harm her, including pulling her off of the bed, hitting her, and kicking her. K.B.’s

testimony was sufficient to establish the elements of assault. See id.

       {¶16} In addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Barber also

invites us to reweigh the evidence presented at trial and to find his testimony more

credible than K.B.’s. But “it is well settled law that matters as to the credibility of

witnesses are for the trier of fact to resolve.” State v. Johnson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.

C-170354, 2019-Ohio-3877, ¶ 52. “Because the trier of fact sees and hears the

witnesses at trial, we must defer to the factfinder’s decisions whether, and to what

extent, to credit the testimony of particular witnesses.” Id. Thus, the trial court was

in the best position to resolve matters of credibility, and we must defer to its decision

to give more weight to K.B.’s testimony.

       {¶17} In that regard, K.B. denied that there were any prior altercations in

Columbus. And as the trial court noted in making its findings, it was not unusual for

                                                 5
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

there to be some degrees of inconsistency between a witness’s written statement and

trial testimony in a courtroom setting.         As the state points out, these minor

inconsistencies and K.B.’s delay in calling the police are explained by K.B.’s testimony

that she feared Barber on the night of the attack, since he remained in her apartment

on her couch. Adding to the trial court’s credibility assessment was physical evidence

of the assault. The photos that officers had taken of K.B. on the same day as the

altercation corroborated her testimony at trial.

       {¶18} Accordingly, given that K.B. explained the delay in calling the police,

that minor inconsistencies in statements to the police and trial testimony are not

unusual in assault cases, and that photographic evidence corroborated K.B.’s

statements at trial, we cannot say that Barber’s conviction was against the manifest

weight of the evidence.

       {¶19} We therefore overrule Barber’s assignment of error and affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

                                                                      Judgment affirmed.

ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., concur.

Please note:
       The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                                6