Court Opinion

ID: 9896245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 20:09:53.691937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:48.333732
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Barksdale, 2023-Ohio-4064.]

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                  SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                        GREENE COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO                                        :
                                                      :
       Appellee                                       :   C.A. No. 2023-CA-32
                                                      :
 v.                                                   :   Trial Court Case No. 22 CRB 00801
                                                      :
 DEZANE NICOLE BARKSDALE                              :   (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
                                                      :
       Appellant                                      :
                                                      :

                                                 ...........

                                                 OPINION

                                     Rendered on November 9, 2023

                                                 ...........

ROBERT ALAN BRENNER, Attorney for Appellant

DANIELLE E. SOLLARS, Attorney for Appellee

                                                .............

TUCKER, J.

        {¶ 1} Dezane Nicole Barksdale appeals from her conviction on one count of child

endangering, a first-degree misdemeanor.

        {¶ 2} In two related assignments of error, Barksdale challenges the legal

sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence to sustain her conviction.

        {¶ 3} We conclude that the State’s evidence was legally sufficient to convict
                                                                                         -2-

Barksdale and that her conviction was not against the weight of the evidence.

Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.

                                      I. Background

       {¶ 4} Barksdale was charged with one count of child endangering in violation of

R.C. 2919.22(A). The offense involved her being asleep at home when her three-year-

old child was found alone outside in the middle of the street.

       {¶ 5} The case proceeded to a bench trial at which three witnesses testified. The

first was Melissa Bunch. She was driving near the intersection of Detroit Street and

Coddington Avenue on the afternoon of March 17, 2022, when she saw a toddler standing

in the middle of the street. Bunch stopped and escorted the child to a sidewalk. She called

the police and waited with the child until Xenia police officer Terry Zoerb arrived. Bunch

stayed with the child as Zoerb went door to door looking for the toddler’s residence.

       {¶ 6} The next witness was Zoerb. He testified that he approached Barksdale’s

house and observed a side door ajar. He stepped inside and announced his presence.

Barksdale came downstairs and acknowledged that the toddler was her child. Zoerb

testified that Barksdale explained she had been sleeping and that a relative was

supposed to be watching the child. Barksdale stayed inside her house with the child while

Zoerb returned to his cruiser to write a citation for child endangering. Approximately 15

minutes after Zoerb’s arrival at the scene, a female relative of Barksdale’s showed up

outside as he was preparing the citation. The relative did not emerge from Barksdale’s

house, and Zoerb could not recall whether she walked up or arrived in a vehicle. Zoerb

also could not remember whether the relative told him she was supposed to be watching
                                                                                             -3-

Barksdale’s child. After he completed the citation, Zoerb attempted to serve it on

Barksdale, but she did not answer his knocks on her door.

       {¶ 7} The final witness was Barksdale, who testified in her own defense. She

explained that she had worked a 12-hour factory shift the previous night. Barksdale

admitted being asleep upstairs at the time in question. She testified that her grandmother

was supposed to be watching her child while she slept. Barksdale denied knowing that

her grandmother had left the child alone. She recalled telling her grandmother that she

was going to bed upstairs and seeing her child asleep on the couch. Barksdale testified

that her grandmother was watching television when she went to bed. The next thing she

knew an officer was yelling at her from downstairs and her grandmother was gone.

Barksdale testified that her grandmother moved away after the incident and lived in

Michigan at the time of trial.

       {¶ 8} Following Barksdale’s testimony, the trial court ruled from the bench and

stated:

              * * * Statute reads no person who’s the parent, guardian, custodian,

       person having custody, control of a child under 18 years of age or a child of

       mental or physical disability shall create a substantial risk to health or safety

       of the child. I have a witness that’s testified that this child is on a street in a

       diaper. Who knows what would have happened if Ms. Bunch had not

       intervened and taken care of it. You know, this defense is the equivalent of,

       you know, if—if an illegal substance is found in a pair of pants, it’s not my

       pants. You know, there’s nobody here—if—you’ve got CSB subpoenaed.
                                                                                              -4-

       There’s nothing that would prevent the grandparent from being here to

       testify and to corroborate. It’s just not—there was no evidence—everything

       I heard was mitigation. There’s nothing with respect to this child being

       placed in extreme danger. * * *

May 10, 2023 Transcript at 31-32.

       {¶ 9} The trial court found Barksdale guilty. It imposed and suspended a 180-day

jail sentence. It also imposed a $250 fine and placed her on two years of probation. This

appeal followed.

                                         II. Analysis

       {¶ 10} Barksdale’s two assignments of error state:

       I. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO SUPPORT A

       CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING CHILDREN.

       II. BARKSDALE’S CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING CHILDREN IS

       AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

       {¶ 11} Although Barksdale was asleep when her toddler was found outside in the

street, she claims her conviction was based on legally insufficient evidence and was

against the manifest weight of the evidence. Barksdale argues that she did not violate the

child-endangering statute because she left her child in her grandmother’s care while she

slept. In light of officer Zoerb’s inability to recall whether the unidentified relative told him

she was supposed to be watching the child, Barksdale contends her own testimony about

her grandmother being responsible for the child was undisputed. Barksdale further

asserts that her testimony was corroborated by the fact that a female relative did arrive

while Zoerb was there. Under these circumstances, she claims the evidence failed to
                                                                                          -5-

support her conviction for child endangering.

       {¶ 12} “An 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 the

defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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.”

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

       {¶ 13} Our analysis is different when reviewing a manifest-weight argument. When

a conviction is challenged on appeal as being against the weight of the evidence, an

appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable

inferences, consider witness credibility, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in

the evidence, the trier of fact “clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage

of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v.

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). A judgment should be

reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence “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).

       {¶ 14} With the foregoing standards in mind, we reject Barksdale’s legal-

sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges. She was convicted of violating R.C.

2919.22(A), which provides in relevant part: “No person, who is the parent, guardian,

custodian, person having custody or control, or person in loco parentis of a child under
                                                                                          -6-

eighteen years of age * * * shall create a substantial risk to the health or safety of the

child, by violating a duty of care, protection, or support.” The mental state of recklessness

is an essential element of child endangering in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A). State v.

McGee, 79 Ohio St.3d 193, 195-196, 680 N.E.2d 975 (1997).

       {¶ 15} Here Barksdale’s three-year-old child was found in the street while she was

asleep in her house. She nevertheless insists she did not create a substantial risk to the

health or safety of her child by violating a duty of care or protection because she left the

child in the care of her own grandmother. In support, Barksdale cites State v. Perrine, 5th

Dist. Stark No. 2001CA00338, 2002-Ohio-2898. In that case, the Fifth District found

legally insufficient evidence to convict a mother of child endangering where she went out

and left her five-year old son and another child in the care of two babysitters who were

ages 12 and 13. Both babysitters fell asleep, and the five-year-old boy was found in the

street. The Fifth District reversed the mother’s conviction, noting that she had hired two

babysitters who had access to a telephone and that the mother also had returned home

and checked on her children, at which time her son had been asleep and at least one

babysitter had been awake.

       {¶ 16} A key distinction between Perrine and the present case is that the trial court

apparently disbelieved Barksdale’s testimony about her grandmother watching her child.

As the trier of fact, the trial court acted within its discretion in making this credibility

determination. Although an unidentified female relative did appear outside of Barksdale’s

residence about 15 minutes after officer Zoerb’s arrival, the trial court was not obligated

to accept as true Barksdale’s self-serving and unverifiable claim that this person was her
                                                                                           -7-

grandmother or that that this person had been responsible for babysitting while she slept.

In assessing the credibility of Barksdale’s testimony, the trial court reasonably considered

the relative’s absence from trial despite being able to corroborate Barksdale’s assertion

if it were true. We note too that officer Zoerb’s inability to recall whether the relative

claimed to have been responsible for watching the child did not corroborate Barksdale’s

testimony. The officer’s inability to remember what the relative said favored neither party.

       {¶ 17} In short, the State’s uncontroverted evidence established that Barksdale

was asleep in her home when her three-year-old child was discovered alone in the middle

of the street. This evidence was legally sufficient to support Barksdale’s child-

endangering conviction, particularly in light of the trial court’s disbelief of her claim that

she had left the child in the care of an absent grandmother. Barksdale’s conviction also

was not against the weight of the evidence. Despite her contention that her grandmother

was responsible for watching the child, this is not an exceptional case in which the

evidence weighed heavily against her conviction. Accordingly, the two assignments of

error are overruled.

                                      III. Conclusion

       {¶ 18} The judgment of the Xenia Municipal Court is affirmed.

                                      .............

LEWIS, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.