Court Opinion

ID: 9946471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 19:10:19.492219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:28.837481
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Fadel, 2024-Ohio-730.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                   :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,             :
                                                           No. 112725
                 v.                              :

ALLISON FADEL,                                   :

                 Defendant-Appellant.            :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 29, 2024

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                              Case No. CR-22-666719-A

                                           Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Halie Turigliatti, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 Edward M. Heindel, for appellant.

LISA B. FORBES, J.:

                   Allison Fadel (“Fadel”) appeals the trial court’s journal entry

convicting her of felonious assault. After reviewing the facts of the case and the

pertinent law, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
I.   Facts and Procedural History

              This case concerns a fight on November 7, 2022, in which Fadel, her

sister Ashley Gaines (“Gaines”), Sheena Walcott (“Sheena”), and Shawnee Walcott

(“Shawnee”) were involved.

              Following a jury trial, Fadel was found guilty of one count of felonious

assault against Sheena, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and

of one count of felonious assault against Shawnee, a second-degree felony in

violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1). The trial court sentenced Fadel to four-to-six years

in prison on each count, to run concurrently.

              It is from this order that Fadel appeals raising the following

assignments of error:

      1. The defendant was denied her right to the effective assistance of
      counsel because counsel did not request a jury instruction on the
      inferior offense of aggravated assault.

      2. The trial court committed plain error by not instructing the jury on
      the inferior offense of aggravated assault[.]

      3. The convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence.

      4. The convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

II. Trial Testimony

              The jury heard from five witnesses: Sheena, Shawnee, Detective

Timothy Hannon (“Det. Hannon”), Fadel, and Gaines. The following pertinent

testimony and evidence was presented.
      A. Sheena Walcott

               On November 7, 2021, Sheena and Shawnee went to a birthday party

at the Ken Ferguson Party Center. The two arrived at approximately 1 a.m.

               Sheena knew Fadel as an “acquaintance,” and described their

relationship as “friendly.” She would often see Fadel and Gaines at reggae parties.

According to Sheena, her relationship with Fadel became less friendly a few months

prior to November 7, 2021.

               Sheena claimed that while she and Shawnee were at the party, they

“felt like [they] had to watch [their] backs.” Throughout the evening, Fadel and

Gaines were “at the back by the speakers,” so she and Shawnee decided to “go on the

whole other side of the room,” by the DJ on the dancefloor. Shawnee became tired

and did not want to dance, so she stepped to the side. At that point, according to

Sheena, Fadel “walks up to the dance floor. I don’t know where [Gaines] is at this

point in time. And then [Fadel’s] pointing extremely rowdy and violently, and, like,

maybe she’s just dancing to the song and then I’m, like, no, she’s pointing at me.

So I, like, walk away as fast as I can. Next thing you know, I’m knocked out.”

               Sheena explained that while she “was walking away, [Fadel] struck

[her] from behind and the impact went in [her] left eye. And it went on for several

minutes in that same left eye only and then when she missed, [Sheena] got hit in

[her] temple a couple times on the top of [her] head.” Sheena stated that during

the altercation she suffered from a “serrated cut [that] was cut with a specific tool.”
               Asked whether it would be accurate to say that Sheena “ran up behind

* * * Fadel and bumped her in the back to start the fight,” Sheena responded, “no.”

               According to Sheena, the fight occurred at approximately 2:30 a.m.

just before she and Shawnee were preparing to leave. Sheena estimated the fight

lasted between six and eight minutes.

               Two videos of a 12-second portion of the fight were played for the jury

and admitted into evidence. Both videos depicted the same events, but one was

played at normal speed and the other was slowed. Sheena identified herself in the

videos; she is shown lying on the floor with Fadel standing over her. Fadel is wearing

two arm braces and is hitting Sheena repeatedly.

               Sheena described herself as “totally out of it” after the fight. She

explained that she felt “star dazed” and not herself. Her face and eye hurt, and

according to Sheena, she “looked deformed.”

               Sheena went to the emergency room at Hillcrest Hospital the

following day. Sheena identified the following injuries resulting from the fight:

broken bones including “left eye, * * * left nose, * * * scapula, and the bottom of [her]

chin,” “nerve damage to the trigeminal nerve, * * * which damaged [her] whole face,”

a concussion, and cuts on her leg. Photos Sheena took depicting her physical injuries

were admitted into evidence.

               After her visit to the emergency room, Sheena saw two eye doctors, a

neurologist, an ear, nose, and throat doctor, a maxillofacial specialist, and a

therapist for PTSD. Sheena explained that she saw the neurologist due to numbness
in her lips and half of her face as well as nerve pain. As a result of the incident,

Sheena could not move the muscles around her mouth, and at the time of trial she

had not fully regained the ability to do so.

      B. Shawnee Walcott

               Shawnee testified that after she saw Fadel pointing her finger at

Sheena, she “felt someone hitting [her] on the right side of [her] face.” According to

Shawnee, Gaines was the person hitting her. Shawnee testified that it felt like she

was getting hit with a hammer and that “it sounded like a dumbbell hitting the wood

floor * * *.” Gaines “definitely had metal” with which she was hitting Shawnee and

that instrument was serrated. Shawnee was “cut with something that has the exact

same pattern as [Sheena], so [Fadel and Gaines] had the exact same tool.” “[T]hey

planned it, premeditated it, and plotted it and that’s the reason we have the exact

same injuries.”

               Shawnee identified herself in the two videos of the fight. She is seen

lying on the ground with Gaines standing over her; Gaines is hitting and kicking

Shawnee.

               Shawnee suffered cuts on her fingertips, upper lip, and leg. Several

of these cuts took up to three months to heal. Additionally, Shawnee’s eye was

swollen shut and two of her teeth were chipped as a result of the incident. At the

time of trial, Shawnee was still seeing doctors for her injuries, she occasionally sees

a glare in her eye, has a scar on her left leg, and suffers from PTSD.
      C. Det. Timothy Hannon

              Det. Hannon testified that Detective Nykolai Przybylaski (“Det.

Przybylaski”) was originally assigned the Fadel investigation, but the investigation

was reassigned to Det. Hannon when Det. Przybylaski retired.

              As part of the investigation, a search warrant was issued for Fadel’s

Instagram account records from November 6, 2021, through December 6, 2021.

Instagram’s parent company, Meta, certified the records, which were admitted into

evidence. According to Det. Hanon, the Instagram records showed that Fadel sent

various messages including the following:

      Beat these h**s a** in the club. * * * They pressing charges and they
      started it.

      But the bi*** I was telling you been fu***** with me came and bumped
      me on badmon tune and I snapped. I snatched my own wig off cause it
      was hanging in my face and I could see. I told them I box in real life.
      No hair pulling.

      This girl poke her fingers in my face and I took off on her.

      She pushed my arm and I lost it.

      She touched me and I lost it.

      As I was telling Sheena again not to touch me, I saw her sister coming
      at me in my side-view so I swung on both of ‘em.

      I broke my phone Saturday beating bi*** up. These girls that be at all
      the African and Jamaican parties and can’t dance be fu**** with us and
      it been going on for weeks. But way too classy to be fighting so we let
      them do whatever they do. And because they used to be my friends and
      I can’t hurt people I love until Saturday, I just got tired. She kept
      fu***** with me walking past me and then she pushed my shoulder. So
      I told don’t be playing with me because I will be you’re a** tonight. And
      she put her finger in my face so I choked her and I saw her sister coming
      out of the corner of my eye, so I punched her. So I beat the one I was
      already choking. My wig was in my way. I snatched it off so I could see
      her. That’s how bad I been waiting on this. Den security come break
      us up and the song don’t need security in the club bi***, I thought you
      was a thug came on and me and my sister started dancing and laughing
      and pointing at them.

      D. Allison Fadel

              According to Fadel, she and Gaines arrived around 11 p.m. At around

1 a.m., Fadel stated that she was “throwing money on the DJ” when Sheena pushed

her. This was the first time she had seen Sheena or Shawnee that evening. After the

push, Fadel “turned to tell [Sheena] not to touch [her] again.” Fadel described the

push as “a very hard push. My neck kind of whipped back” and claimed that Sheena

proceeded to poke her multiple times in the face. A few seconds later, Fadel stated

that she “was yoked up and punched [by Shawnee]” resulting in Fadel “chuck[ing]

her off” and “sw[inging] back on the girl.” Shawnee was pulled off and the fight

between Fadel and Sheena continued. Fadel stated that Sheena hit her with a phone

on her forehead. Fadel recalled being hit two or three times.

              During the incident Fadel felt like she “was being attacked [and] had

to defend” herself. Fadel was “scared” because Sheena was bigger than her and

because she had an injured arm. Fadel claimed she and Sheena had a history of

fighting, explaining that her arm was in a soft cast on the night of the incident

because Sheena had pushed her over at a party on October 22, 2022. She explained

that Sheena was “bullying, pushing, shoving, knocking [her] off of a headstand, even

throwing a chair at [her] that night.” As a result of the October incident, Fadel had

a cast on her arm. However, by the night of the fight, Fadel had a soft cast.
              According to Fadel the fight only lasted two minutes. After the fight

was over, Fadel testified that she “continued to party.”

              When asked about her Instagram message in which she said she

choked Sheena, Fadel explained that she used “speech to text” and she “meant to say

chucked, chucked her meaning push her off of me.” However, Fadel was reminded

that that same Instagram message continues and says, “I saw her sister coming out

of the corner of my eye, so I punched her. So I beat the one I was already choking.”

Fadel simply responded, “[a]utocorrect.”

      E. Ashley Gaines

              Gaines explained that while she was dancing, she heard a

“commotion.” Gaines was unsure where Fadel was, so she began looking for her.

Gaines realized the “commotion” was a fight when Shawnee had been pulled away

from Fadel and Sheena. At that time, Shawnee grabbed Gaines by the hair and

Gaines “started swinging at her.” Gaines and Shawnee’s altercation lasted “less than

a minute.”

III. Law and Analysis

              We will address Fadel’s assignments of error out of order for ease of

discussion.

      A. Sufficiency and Manifest Weight of the Evidence

              In her third (sufficiency) and fourth (manifest weight) assignments of

error, Fadel argues that her conviction for felonious assault against Shawnee is not

supported by sufficient evidence and the jury lost its way in convicting her because
there is no evidence of complicity and she “never touched” Shawnee. Fadel also

argues that she acted in self-defense against Sheena.

               Fadel was convicted of two counts of felonious assault in violation of

R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), which provides, in part, that

      [n]o person shall knowingly * * * [c]ause serious physical harm to
      another or to another’s unborn[.]

               “[A]n appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the

evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at

trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed,” would convince the average

mind of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d

259, 273, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). “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. at paragraph two of the syllabus, citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99

S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). “In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy.

Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law.”

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

               A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence “addresses the

evidence’s effect of inducing belief. * * * In other words, a reviewing court asks

whose evidence is more persuasive the state’s or the defendant’s?” State v. Wilson,

113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d 1264, ¶ 25. “When a court of

appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against
the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as the ‘thirteenth juror’ and

disagrees with the factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.” Thompkins

at 387, quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652

(1982). Reversing a conviction under a manifest weight theory “should be exercised

only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the

conviction.”    State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st

Dist.1983).

              1. Complicity

                Fadel argues “there was no evidence that Fadel aided or acted in

concert with Gaines” and therefore there was insufficient evidence to convict her of

felonious assault against Shawnee. We disagree.

                Under Ohio’s complicity statute, “[n]o person, acting with the kind of

culpability required for the commission of an offense, shall * * * [a]id or abet another

in committing the offense.” R.C. 2923.03(A)(2). A defendant guilty of complicity

“shall be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender. A charge of

complicity may be stated * * * in terms of the principal offense.” R.C. 2923.03(F).

      “To support a conviction for complicity by aiding and abetting pursuant
      to R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), the evidence must show that the defendant
      supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited
      the principal in the commission of the crime, and that the defendant
      shared the criminal intent of the principal. Such intent may be inferred
      from the circumstances surrounding the crime.”

State v. Sutton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 102300 and 102302, 2015-Ohio-4074,

¶ 33, quoting State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240, 754 N.E.2d 796 (2001), syllabus.
              The state presented sufficient evidence of complicity to convict Fadel

of felonious assault against Shawnee. The evidence demonstrated that Fadel and

Gaines were together, away from Sheena and Shawnee prior to the fight. Sheena

testified that at approximately 2 a.m., Fadel approached her on the dance floor and

hit her as she tried to walk away. According to Shawnee, at the moment she saw

Fadel hit Sheena for the first time, Gaines struck her. Further, according to Sheena

and Shawnee, a few moments after Fadel began “pointing at” Sheena, Fadel and

Gaines began attacking them. Sheena testified that she suffered injuries from being

struck by Fadel with a serrated object. Shawnee testified that she was struck with

the same object leaving the same injuries. If believed, this evidence could sustain

Fadel’s conviction for felonious assault against Shawnee in that Fadel supported,

assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited Gaines to attack Shawnee.

              Further, under the unique facts of this case, we find that the jury’s

verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. That is, this is not the

extraordinary case that warrants a finding that the jury clearly lost its way in

believing Shawnee over Fadel that Fadel and Gaines supported, assisted,

encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited each other in the fight. While Fadel

testified that she did not plan the fight with Sheena and Shawnee, the jury also heard

testimony from Shawnee that the fight was coordinated. Shawnee testified she saw

Fadel approach Sheena, and at that moment Gaines hit Shawnee. This court has

consistently held that “when considering a manifest weight challenge, the trier of

fact is in the best position to take into account inconsistencies, along with the
witness’s manner, demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections, in determining

whether the proffered testimony is credible.” State v. Holloway, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 101289, 2015-Ohio-1015, ¶ 42.

              Accordingly, we find that the state presented sufficient evidence to

support Fadel’s convictions for felonious assault against Shawnee, and Fadel’s

conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

           2. Self-Defense

              Next, Fadel argues that she acted in self-defense and, therefore, her

convictions must be overturned.

              Prior to finding Fadel guilty of both counts of felonious assault, the

jury was instructed to consider whether she acted in self-defense. Pursuant to

R.C. 2901.05, self-defense is defined as follows:

      (B)(1) A person is allowed to act in self-defense, defense of another, or
      defense of that person’s residence. If, at the trial of a person who is
      accused of an offense that involved the person’s use of force against
      another, there is evidence presented that tends to support that the
      accused person used the force in self-defense, defense of another, or
      defense of that person’s residence, the prosecution must prove beyond
      a reasonable doubt that the accused person did not use the force in self-
      defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence, as
      the case may be.

              In cases involving the use of nondeadly force, the affirmative

defense of self-defense applies where:

      (1) the defendant was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to
      the affray in which the use of force occurred, (2) the defendant had
      reasonable grounds to believe and an honest belief, even if mistaken,
      that he or she was in imminent danger of bodily harm and (3) the only
      means to protect himself or herself from such danger was the use of
      force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, i.e., the defendant
      did not use more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against
      the imminent danger of bodily harm.

State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-3722, 155 N.E.3d 1056, ¶ 43 (8th Dist.), citing Ohio

Jury Instructions, CR Section 421.19 (Rev. Apr. 13, 2019).

               “In other words, if the accused satisfies the burden of presenting

evidence that tends to support that they acted in self-defense, the burden shifts to

the state to disprove at least one of the elements above.” State v. Smith, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 112233, 2023-Ohio-3973, ¶ 30, citing Jacinto at ¶ 46; State v. Walker,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109328, 2021-Ohio-2037, ¶ 13 (“[i]n light of the cumulative

nature of the self-defense elements, the state need only disprove one of the elements

of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt at trial to sustain its burden * * *.”).

               Upon review, we find that Fadel met her initial burden of production,

in that the evidence presented during trial raised the question of self-defense.

Specifically, Fadel testified that (1) Sheena initiated the confrontation when she

pushed and poked her, (2) she felt threatened because Sheena was bigger than

herself, (3) she was injured, and (4) she acted in self-defense.

               Under R.C. 2905.01(B)(1), the burden then shifted to the state to

prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Fadel did not act in self-defense by showing

at least one of three factors. The first factor is whether Fadel was at fault in creating

the situation giving rise to the fight. In assessing whether the defendant was at fault

in a self-defense scenario, courts ask “in essence, whether the defendant was the

initial aggressor.” State v. Gardner, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110606, 2022-Ohio-
381, ¶ 25. Here, the jury heard from both Sheena and Shawnee that they did not

provoke Fadel prior to being attacked. Sheena stated that she stayed away from

Fadel the entire evening and that Fadel angrily approached her on the dance floor

before Fadel began to hit her.

               Moreover, under the third factor, self-defense is limited to situations

where the only means available to Fadel to protect herself from danger was the use

of force. While not demonstrative of the entire encounter, video evidence depicted

Sheena lying on the ground, defenseless and not taking any actions to defend herself

as Fadel repeatedly hit her. This evidence is consistent with a finding that Fadel was

not in imminent danger of harm at that time.

               Accordingly, we find that the state met its burden in presenting

sufficient evidence that Fadel did not act in self-defense.

               Moreover, although the jury heard testimony from Fadel that she was

not the aggressor, we again note that the jury was “in the best position to take into

account inconsistencies, along with the witness’s manner, demeanor, gestures, and

voice inflections, in determining whether the proffered testimony is credible.”

Holloway, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101289, 2015-Ohio-1015, at ¶ 42. Given the

totality of the evidence, we find that this is not the exceptional case in which the

evidence weighs heavily against the jury’s rejection of Fadel’s self-defense argument.

               Fadel’s third and fourth assignments of error are overruled.
      B. Aggravated Assault

                In her first and second assignments of error, Fadel argues that the

jury should have been instructed on the inferior offense of aggravated assault.

                Aggravated assault is defined in R.C. 2903.12(A) as follows:

      No person, while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden
      fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation
      occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the
      person into using deadly force, shall knowingly * * * [c]ause serious
      physical harm to another or to another’s unborn.

           1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

                In her first assignment of error, Fadel argues that she received

ineffective assistance of trial counsel when he failed to request a jury instruction for

the inferior offense of aggravated assault.

                To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a

defendant must establish that his or her attorney’s performance was deficient and

that the defendant was prejudiced by the deficient performance. Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). However, “a

court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before

examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged

deficiencies.   The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel’s

performance.” Id. at 697. See also State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d

373 (1989).

                “As a general matter, defense counsel’s tactical decisions and trial

strategies, even ‘debatable’ ones, do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”
State v. Scarton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108474, 2020-Ohio-2952, ¶ 90. A defense

counsel’s decision about which theory or defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial

strategy “‘within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after

consultation with his [or her] client.’” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 524, 2747

N.E.2d 765 (2001), quoting Lewis v. Alexander, 11 F.3d 1349, 1354 (6th Cir.1993);

Scarton at ¶ 99.

               This court has recognized that aggravated assault is incompatible

with a theory of self-defense because self-defense requires proof of fear while

aggravated assault requires a showing of a sudden passion or rage. State v.

Hughkeith, 2023-Ohio-1217, 212 N.E.3d 1147, ¶ 102 (8th Dist.); State v. Bouie, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108095, 2019-Ohio-4579, ¶ 47 (“[i]t has been held that in most

cases, jury instructions on both self-defense and serious provocation are

inconsistent” because “the mental states of fear as required for self-defense and rage

as required for aggravated assault are incompatible.”).

               In Hughkeith, this court overruled an appellant’s assignment of error

that his trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting an aggravated assault

instruction when he was charged with felonious assault and proceeded to trial on a

self-defense theory. The Hughkeith Court stated:

      Contrary to, and inconsistent with, defense counsel’s theory and
      interpretation of the evidence, Hughkeith now argues that a jury
      instruction on the inferior-degree offense[] of * * * aggravated assault
      was warranted in this case. As stated, however, defense counsel
      maintained throughout the entirety of the trial that Hughkeith acted in
      self-defense and only fired the fatal gunshots because he feared
      imminent death or great bodily harm. At no point did the defense argue
      or introduce evidence to insinuate that Hughkeith acted under the
      influence of sudden passion or in a fit of rage. This was because defense
      counsel sought an acquittal in this case based upon counsel’s
      perception of the state’s evidence; not a conviction on an inferior
      offense. See State v. Scarton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108474, 2020-
      Ohio-2952, ¶ 99; State v. Lenard, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 105342 and
      105343, 2018-Ohio-4847, ¶ 18; State v. Carter, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
      104653, 2017-Ohio-5573, ¶ 53-54 (Failing to request an instruction on
      an inferior offense does not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of
      counsel where trial counsel’s strategy was to obtain an acquittal rather
      than a conviction of an inferior offense.). Trial counsel’s strategy at
      trial, even if “questionable” or “if, in hindsight, it looks as if a better
      strategy had been available,” does not support a claim of ineffective
      assistance of counsel. See, e.g., State v. Cottrell, 4th Dist. Ross
      Nos. 11CA3241 and 11CA3242, 2012-Ohio-4583, ¶ 21; State v.
      Henderson, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 15 MA 0137, 2018-Ohio-2816, ¶ 71-
      73.

Hughkeith at ¶ 103.

              Similarly, Fadel’s trial counsel sought an acquittal on the theory that

she acted in self-defense. In closing arguments, Fadel’s trial counsel stated, “[W]e

believe in this case they should be acquitted, both of them, including Allison Fadel,

with these charges that were brought against her. * * * [T]he State cannot prove

that this was not self-defense.”       Accordingly, we find that Fadel has not

demonstrated that her trial counsel’s trial strategy amounted to ineffective

assistance of counsel.

              Fadel’s first assignment of error is overruled.

            2. Plain Error

              Fadel argues in her second assignment of error that the trial court

committed plain error when it failed to instruct the jury on aggravated assault. We

disagree.
              Pursuant to Crim.R. 52(B), “[p]lain errors or defects affecting

substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of

the court.” It is well-established law that a “failure to object waives all but plain

error.” State v. Harris, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110982, 2022-Ohio-4630, ¶ 35.

              To review for plain error, courts must engage in a three-part test.

State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002).

      First, there must be an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule. * * *
      Second, the error must be plain. To be “plain” within the meaning of
      Crim.R. 52(B), an error must be an “obvious” defect in the trial
      proceedings. * * * Third, the error must have affected “substantial
      rights.” We have interpreted this aspect of the rule to mean that the
      trial court’s error must have affected the outcome of the trial.

(Emphasis sic.) Id. at 27.

              Generally, “[a] charge on a lesser included or inferior offense is

required only where the evidence presented at trial would reasonably support both

an acquittal on the crime charged and a conviction upon the lesser included or

inferior offense.” State v. Carter, 2018-Ohio-3671, 119 N.E.3d 896, ¶ 59 (8th Dist.),

citing State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213, 533 N.E.2d 286 (1988), paragraph two of

the syllabus. When trial courts determine whether an inferior-offense instruction is

appropriate, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the

defendant. Id. at ¶ 59, citing State v. Monroe, 105 Ohio St. 3d 384, 2005-Ohio-2282,

827 N.E.2d 285, ¶ 37.
               “An instruction is not warranted, however, every time ‘some evidence’

is presented on a lesser-included or inferior offense.” Hughkeith, 2023-Ohio-1217,

212 N.E.3d 1147, at ¶ 94.

       To require an instruction * * * every time some evidence, however
       minute, is presented going to a lesser-included (or inferior-degree)
       offense would mean that no trial judge could ever refuse to give an
       instruction on a lesser-included (or inferior-degree) offense.

State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90478, 2009-Ohio-2244, ¶ 12, citing State v.

Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630, 633, 590 N.E.2d 272 (1992). “Thus, a court must find

there is sufficient evidence to allow a jury to reasonably reject the greater offense

and find the defendant guilty on the lesser-included or inferior offense” before

determining the instruction was warranted. Hughkeith at ¶ 94, citing Shane at 632-

633.

               In the case at hand, the court heard testimony from Fadel that she is

“afraid of anyone that wants to hurt” her. She felt scared and that she needed to

defend herself against Sheena because of her size and broken arm. There was no

testimony that she acted out of sudden passion or in a fit of rage. While some of

Fadel’s Instagram messages state that she “snapped” or “lost it,” Fadel did not testify

that she felt that way when Sheena allegedly bumped into her. Therefore, even

though there is arguably “some evidence” of a fit of rage, we find that the trial court

did not plainly err when it did not instruct the jury regarding aggravated assault.

               Fadel’s second assignment of error is overruled.

               Judgment affirmed.
      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.          The defendant’s

conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case

remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR