[Cite as State v. Price,
2019-Ohio-3201.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 28150
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2017-CRB-7519
:
LACHASHIA C. PRICE : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
:
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 9th day of August, 2019.
...........
TROY B. DANIELS, Atty. Reg. No. 0084957, Assistant City of Dayton Prosecutor, 335
West Third Street, Room 372, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
MARIA L. RABOLD, Atty. Reg. No. 0089080, 443 East Central Avenue, Miamisburg, Ohio
45342
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
TUCKER, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Lachashia Price appeals from her conviction for
domestic violence and criminal damaging. Specifically, she contends that there was
insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for domestic violence and that that
conviction was also against the weight of the evidence. We conclude that the State
presented sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, as there was evidence from which
a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. We further conclude that Price’s conviction was not against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} This case stems from an altercation that occurred between Price and her
half-sister Tieya Price on November 16, 2017.1 Following an investigation, Price was
charged with domestic violence, assault and criminal damaging. A bench trial was
conducted on June 7, 2018.
{¶ 3} During the trial, Tieya testified that, on the date of the altercation, Price and
Price’s boyfriend, Jermain Talie, drove to Tieya’s home in order to shower. While there,
Price asked Tieya for five dollars in order to purchase gasoline for her vehicle which she
had parked at Tieya’s residence. Tieya informed Price that she did not have money to
give her. Thereafter, Tieya drove both Price and Talie to their places of employment.
1
Because they share the same last name, we will refer to Lachashia Price as “Price” and
to her half-sister as “Tieya.”
-3-
Price’s vehicle remained at Tieya’s residence. Tieya testified that she and her teenaged
daughter, Lamya Demmons, picked up Price from her workplace at approximately 7:30
p.m. that same day and then drove around for several hours. Tieya testified that, when
they returned to Tieya’s residence, Price was upset because Tieya had not loaned her
the five dollars she had requested earlier. According to Tieya, Price detached Tieya’s
rearview mirror from the vehicle and hit Tieya in the face with it. Tieya testified that Price
then punched her in the face. Afterward, Price proceeded to kick Tieya’s vehicle. Tieya
testified that Price and Talie then left the scene and that Tieya then called 911. Tieya
testified that, after the incident, she consumed some alcohol.
{¶ 4} Demmons also testified that Price hit Tieya in the face with both the rearview
mirror and with her fist. She further testified that Price kicked Tieya’s vehicle.
Demmons denied that her mother had been drinking. Demmons left the scene before
the police arrived.
{¶ 5} Dayton Police Officer Terrell Moore testified that he was dispatched to the
scene where he met Tieya. Moore testified that Tieya appeared to have been assaulted
and that she had blood on her face. He testified that Tieya appeared to be under the
influence of alcohol. He also testified that Price was not at the scene.
{¶ 6} Dayton Police Officer Karina Sulek testified that she was also dispatched to
the scene. She testified that Tieya, who was the only party on the scene, appeared to
have used alcohol. Sulek noted injuries and blood on Tieya’s face. Sulek took pictures
of Tieya and her vehicle. The vehicle had a crack to the front bumper and a dent in the
rear.
{¶ 7} Price testified that when Tieya picked her up from work, Tieya had been
-4-
drinking alcohol. Price testified that as the night progressed, Tieya became intoxicated
and appeared angry. At some point, Talie joined the group, which eventually returned
to Tieya’s residence and retrieved a gas can. Price testified that Tieya and Demmons
began to argue in the house; Price and Talie broke up the fight, and the four then returned
to Tieya’s car to go get gas for Price’s car. Price testified that she and Talie were in the
back seats of the vehicle.
{¶ 8} According to Price, as the car pulled out of the parking lot, Tieya and
Demmons began to argue again, and Tieya stopped the vehicle and attempted to hit
Demmons with the rearview mirror. Demmons exited the vehicle. Tieya put the car in
park, exited, approached Demmons, and the two began to fight. Price testified that Talie
intervened. Price testified that she and Talie then told Demmons that she could stay with
them for the night and that they would get gasoline on their own. According to Price,
Tieya became angry with her for intervening, and Tieya spit on and bit Talie. Price further
testified that, as she was attempting to get Demmons into Price’s car, Tieya began to kick
the vehicle. Price testified that she then kicked the back of Tieya’s car. Price testified
that she was standing by her own car when Tieya pulled her hair, hit her, and jumped into
Price’s car to attempt to “mess up” the car by shifting the gears. According to Price,
while Tieya was pulling her hair, Price hit Tieya in self-defense. When the altercation
ended, Price and Talie left the scene in Price’s car. Talie’s testimony was similar to
Price’s. Both Price and Talie testified that they called the police after the incident, but
they admitted that they never spoke to an officer. On rebuttal, Demmons denied getting
into an argument with her mother. During her testimony, Tieya also denied fighting with
her daughter.
-5-
{¶ 9} The trial court found Price guilty on all charges. During sentencing, the trial
court merged the assault and domestic violence charges and proceeded to sentence
Price for domestic violence and criminal damaging. The court sentenced Price to a jail
term of 180 days, all of which was suspended. The court also imposed five years
community control, restitution, a $50 fine and court costs; for the first year, Price was
placed on supervised probation, but thereafter the community control was “modif[ied] to
non-reporting.”
{¶ 10} Price appeals.
II. Sufficiency and Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶ 11} Price’s four assignments of error state as follows:
APPELLANT’S CONVICTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WAS
AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
THE STATE’S EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY ITS
BURDEN TO PROVE EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
APPELLANT’S CONVICTION OF ASSAULT WAS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
THE STATE’S EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY ITS
BURDEN TO PROVE EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF ASSAULT
-6-
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.2
{¶ 12} Price contends that the State did not present evidence sufficient to sustain
the conviction for domestic violence and that her conviction was against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
{¶ 13} A sufficiency of the evidence analysis focuses upon whether the
prosecution presented adequate evidence, viewing such evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, to sustain the verdict. (Citations omitted.) State v. Radford,
2d Dist. Clark No. 2016-CA-80, 2017-Ohio-8189, ¶ 14. The prosecution has presented
sufficient evidence when “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id., quoting State v. Jenks,
61 Ohio
St.3d 259,
574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 14} A manifest weight analysis, in contrast, requires an appellate court to review
the record, weigh the evidence and any reasonable inferences allowed by the evidence,
consider witness credibility, and determine whether the trier of fact, in resolving any
evidentiary conflicts, “clearly lost its way and created such a miscarriage of justice that
the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Id. at ¶ 15. This consideration
of the evidence must be exercised with caution so that a new trial will only be granted “in
the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Id.,
quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175,
485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983).
Though different legal concepts are involved, if it is concluded that a verdict is supported
2
As stated above, Price was convicted of domestic violence and criminal damaging; the
assault was merged with the domestic violence, and Price was not convicted of assault.
We will address the assignments of error only as they relate to the domestic violence
conviction.
-7-
by the manifest weight of the evidence, the evidence, by necessity, is legally sufficient.
Id. at ¶ 16.
{¶ 15} R.C. 2919.25, which proscribes domestic violence, states in pertinent part
that “[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or
household member.” R.C. 2919.25(A). “A person acts knowingly, regardless of
purpose, when the person is aware that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain
result or will probably be of a certain nature.” R.C. 2901.22(B). “Family or household
member” means any “person related by consanguinity or affinity to the offender” who “is
residing or has resided with the offender[.]” R.C. 2919.25(F)(1)(a)(ii).
{¶ 16} Price’s argument hinges upon her claim that the testimony of her sister and
niece was not credible and that the testimony given by herself and Talie was the only
believable account of the incident. Thus, she claims that there was no credible evidence
that she committed domestic violence, and alternatively, she argues that the credible
evidence supported a finding that she acted in self-defense.
{¶ 17} The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony
are primarily matters for the trier of fact to resolve. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230,
231,
227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). “Because the factfinder … has the opportunity to see and
hear the witnesses, the cautious exercise of the discretionary power of a court of appeals
to find that a judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence requires that
substantial deference be extended to the factfinder's determinations of credibility. The
decision whether, and to what extent, to credit the testimony of particular witnesses is
within the peculiar competence of the factfinder, who has seen and heard the witness.”
State v. Lawson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 16288,
1997 WL 476684, *4 (Aug. 22, 1997).
-8-
An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact on the issue
of witness credibility unless it is patently apparent that the factfinder lost its way in arriving
at its verdict. State v. Bradley, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 97-CA-03, 1997 WL 691510, *4
(Oct. 24, 1997).
{¶ 18} With regard to the claim that Tieya and Demmons presented testimony
lacking credibility, Price claims that they had “wildly” contradictory accounts regarding the
rearview mirror. Specifically, Price claims Tieya testified that Price was inside the vehicle
when she grabbed the rearview mirror and that Tieya later testified that Price was outside
the vehicle at the point she grabbed the mirror. Price also notes that Demmons testified
that Price was outside the vehicle. Price further contends that Tieya lied about
consuming alcohol.
{¶ 19} From our reading of the transcript, we conclude that both Demmons and
Tieya testified that Price was outside of the vehicle when she reached over Tieya and
grabbed the rearview mirror. We find no support for the claim that Tieya also testified
that Price was inside the car when she grabbed the mirror. Further, the record shows
that, while Tieya denied using alcohol prior to the altercation, she did admit to having a
couple of drinks after Price left the scene. Further, both Tieya and Demmons testified
that Price hit Tieya in the face both with the mirror and her fists. They also testified that
Price was the sole aggressor in the incident. The testimony of the police, as well as the
pictures entered into the record, support the claim that Tieya had been hit in the face and
-9-
suffered injury.3 Based upon our review of the record, we find no actual discrepancy in
this testimony and we cannot conclude that Tieya lied about her alcohol use. Nor can
we agree with Price that this testimony was so inherently lacking in credibility as to render
her conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 20} Any disputes regarding the facts presented at trial were for the trial court to
resolve. We cannot say that the trial court's decision to give more credence to the
testimony of Tieya and Demmons demonstrated a circumstance where the trial court, as
the trier of fact, clearly lost its way so that a miscarriage of justice occurred. Because
the trial court's resolution of this conflict was not against the manifest weight of the
evidence, the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court,
accordingly, did not err by rejecting Price’s claim of self-defense and finding her guilty of
the offense of domestic violence.
{¶ 21} Accordingly, all of Price’s assignments of error are overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 22} All of Price’s assignments of error being overruled, the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
.............
FROELICH, J. and HALL, J., concur.
3
There is also evidence in this record upon which the finder of fact could have reasonably
concluded that Price and Tieya were family members as defined by R.C.
2919.25(F)(1)(a)(ii). Specifically, there is evidence that Price had resided in Tieya’s
home at different times, often for several months at a time, and had a common parent.
-10-
Copies sent to:
Troy B. Daniels
Maria L. Rabold
Hon. Christopher D. Roberts
