Court Opinion

ID: 9928382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 17:08:49.636482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:07.681437
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Harper, 2024-Ohio-321.]

STATE OF OHIO                     )                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                  )ss:               NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT                  )

STATE OF OHIO                                        C.A. No.      30523

        Appellee

        v.                                           APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                     ENTERED IN THE
MICHELLE J. HARPER                                   COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                     COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
        Appellant                                    CASE No.   CR 19 10 3527

                                 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: January 31, 2024

        CARR, Judge.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Michelle Harper, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of

Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

                                                I.

        {¶2}     This matter arises out of the death of Harper’s two-year-old grandson, who died

during a sleepover at Harper’s apartment in 2019. In relation to the incident, the Summit County

Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Harper with a number of offenses, including first-

degree felony involuntary manslaughter. Harper pleaded not guilty to the charges at arraignment.

        {¶3}     The matter proceeded to a jury trial. After the State moved to dismiss certain

charges, the jury found Harper guilty on the remaining counts. The trial court conducted a merger

analysis and determined that all of the counts merged for sentencing purposes. The trial court

imposed a prison sentence of not less than six years and not more than nine years on the count of

first-degree felony involuntary manslaughter.
                                                   2

        {¶4}    In December 2022, Harper successfully moved this Court for leave to file a delayed

appeal. Now before this Court, Harper raises one assignment of error.

                                                  II.

                                   ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

        APPELLANT’S CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE OF THE
        PREJUDICE CAUSED BY JUROR MISCONDUCT.

        {¶5}    In her sole assignment of error, Harper contends that her conviction must be

reversed due to juror misconduct. This Court disagrees.

        {¶6}    After the transcript of proceedings was filed in this appeal, Harper filed a motion

to supplement the appellate record with her own affidavit, dated June 14, 2023. In the affidavit,

Harper averred that, at the time the verdict was announced, she realized that she had a personal

history with the jury foreperson. The Court issued a magistrate’s order denying the motion on the

basis that Harper had failed to demonstrate that the matter to be supplemented was part of the trial

court proceedings. Thereafter, Harper filed a motion in trial court requesting that her affidavit be

made part of the trial court record. The trial court denied the motion on the basis that Harper’s

affidavit was not part of the trial court record and, further, that Harper never alerted the trial court

to the issue.

        {¶7}    Harper’s contention that this case involved juror misconduct is not based in the

record before this Court. Instead, Harper’s challenge relies entirely on the aforementioned

affidavit that is not part of the record in this case. App.R. 9(A)(1) provides that the record on

appeal shall consist of “[t]he original papers and exhibits thereto filed in the trial court, the

transcript of proceedings, if any, including exhibits, and a certified copy of the docket and journal

entries prepared by the clerk of the trial court * * *.” Thus, this Court’s review “is limited to

examination of the transcript from the proceedings, and the remainder of the trial court record,
                                                 3

which includes the evidence admitted at trial, and to some extent, the evidence excluded by the

trial court, provided such evidence was proffered, preserving it for [appellate] review.” O'Brien

v. Ohio State Univ., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-946, 2007-Ohio-4833, ¶ 6. Because Harper’s

argument hinges on evidence that lies beyond the scope of the record, she cannot prevail on her

assignment of error. To the extent Harper wishes to pursue a claim based on evidence outside the

record, her claim may be more appropriate for post-conviction relief. State v. Dowdell, 9th Dist.

Summit No. 25930, 2012-Ohio-1326, ¶ 10 (“Any argument which relies on evidence outside the

record on appeal would be more appropriate for post-conviction relief proceedings than a direct

appeal.”)

       {¶8}    Harper’s assignment of error is overruled.

                                                III.

       {¶9}    Harper’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                               Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
                                                4

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

       Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                                     DONNA J. CARR
                                                     FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, P. J.
STEVENSON, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

BRIAN J. WILLIAMS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.