[Cite as State v. Hill,
2020-Ohio-4235.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 28577
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2019-CRB-2177
:
TANZANIA HILL : (Criminal Appeal from
: Municipal Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 28th day of August, 2020.
...........
JORDAN L. BLAKE, Atty. Reg. No. 0099050, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, City of
Dayton Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 335 West Third Street, Room 372,
Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
MARIA L. RABOLD, Atty. Reg. No. 0089080, 443 East Central Avenue, Miamisburg, Ohio
45342
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
DONOVAN, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Tanzania Hill appeals her conviction for one count of
assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. Hill filed a
timely notice of appeal on October 9, 2019.
{¶ 2} The incident which formed the basis for Hill’s conviction occurred on the
afternoon of May 8, 2019, when she was a passenger in an “orange little car” driven by
Damonica Core. Tr. 4. The victim in this case, Icesse Messiah, testified that she
observed Core and Hill as she was driving in her own vehicle, a GMC Yukon, down
Gettysburg Avenue in Dayton, Ohio. Messiah testified that she was accompanied by her
partner, Tonya, who was riding in the front passenger seat of the Yukon. When Messiah
first observed Hill and Core, they were driving in the opposite direction on Gettysburg
Avenue. Messiah testified that she observed Core perform a U-turn in the street and
begin following her vehicle.
{¶ 3} Shortly thereafter, Messiah stopped her vehicle at a nearby store, and Tonya
exited the vehicle and went inside the store. Messiah testified that Core parked her
vehicle in front of Hill’s vehicle. Core and Hill then exited the orange car and walked over
to Messiah’s Yukon. Core began asking about money that she gave to Messiah to
purchase a car part from Messiah’s brother. Messiah responded that her brother had
the money. Core then accused Messiah of stealing the money. Messiah testified that
at this point, she drove out of the parking lot towards her brother’s house, which was
nearby on Wildwood Avenue. Messiah testified that Core and Hill followed her all the
way to her brother’s house and repeatedly called her on her cellphone asking about the
money.
{¶ 4} Upon reaching Wildwood Avenue, Messiah drove to where the street ended
-3-
and attempted to turn around so that she could park in front of her brother’s house.
However, Hill and Core pulled in front of Messiah’s vehicle in order to block her in. From
her vehicle, Messiah threatened to hit Core’s vehicle. Core moved her vehicle out of the
way, and Messiah drove up to her brother’s house. Messiah testified that before she
was able put her vehicle in park, she was hit from behind by Core.
{¶ 5} Messiah testified that, after being struck from behind, she remained in her
vehicle. Shortly thereafter, Messiah observed Hill exit Core’s vehicle. Hill approached
Messiah’s vehicle asking, “Where’s the money?” Tr. 12, 28. Hill then walked up to
Messiah’s open driver’s window. Messiah testified that, when Hill raised her hand,
Messiah’s face and eyes immediately began burning and she had trouble breathing.
Messiah drove away and called the police, who directed her to travel to a nearby police
station on Washington Street, where she would be met by an officer. Messiah testified
that Core and Hill followed her to the police station.
{¶ 6} Messiah was met by Dayton Police Officer Christopher Smith when she
arrived at the station. Officer Smith testified that Messiah pointed out to him the orange
vehicle driven by Core as it passed by the police station. Messiah also informed Officer
Smith that Core and Hill had been following her around and asking for money and that
Hill had pepper sprayed her in her parked vehicle on Wildwood Avenue. Officer Smith
testified that he observed that Messiah’s eyes were tearing up and her face was swollen.
Officer Smith also testified that he detected the distinct odor of pepper spray emanating
from the interior of Messiah’s vehicle. According to Smith, Messiah informed him that
Core had struck the rear end of her vehicle; he inspected Messiah’s rear bumper and
noted that it looked as if it had recently been hit by another vehicle. After interviewing
-4-
Messiah, Officer Smith followed her to her mother’s house in his police cruiser in order to
insure her safety.
{¶ 7} Thereafter, Officer Smith traveled to Core’s residence in order to speak with
her regarding Messiah’s allegations. Officer Smith testified that, when he arrived, he
immediately noticed the orange vehicle that Messiah had earlier pointed out to him as it
drove past the police station. Officer Smith inspected the front bumper of the vehicle and
observed damage consistent with the damage done to the rear bumper of Messiah’s
vehicle. Officer Smith testified that he spoke with Core, and she stated that she and Hill
had been following Messiah earlier and asking about money.
{¶ 8} On May 10, 2019, Hill was charged by criminal complaint with one count of
misdemeanor assault. Hill pled not guilty, and a bench trial was held on July 24, 2019.
Hill was found guilty of assault. On September 17, 2019, the trial court sentenced Hill to
180 days in jail with 180 days suspended, basic supervision for one year, an order to
submit to alcohol/drug testing during her term of supervision, an alcohol/drug evaluation,
a one-day anger management class, and a $50 fine plus court costs.
{¶ 9} It is from this judgment that Hill now appeals.
{¶ 10} Because they are interrelated, Hill’s two assignments of error will be
discussed together:
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
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
-5-
{¶ 11} In her first assignment, Hill contends that her assault conviction was against
the manifest weight of the evidence. In her second assignment, Hill argues that the State
failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support her conviction for assault.
{¶ 12} This Court has previously noted:
When a conviction is challenged 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). In a manifest-
weight analysis, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given
to their testimony are primarily for the trier of facts to resolve. State v.
DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230,
227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). “Because the
factfinder … has the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, the
cautious exercise of discretionary power of a court of appeals to find that a
judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence requires that a
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 witnesses.” State v. Lawson, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 16288, 1997 WL 477684, *5 (Aug. 22, 1997). This
court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact on the issue
-6-
of witness credibility unless it is patently apparent that the trier of fact lost
its way. State v. Bradley, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 97-CA-03, 1997 WL
691510 (Oct. 24, 1997). …
State v. Nelson, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2014-CA-7,
2015-Ohio-113, ¶ 29.
{¶ 13} Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court has previously stated:
“A sufficiency of the evidence argument disputes whether the State
has presented adequate evidence on each element of the offense to allow
the case to go to the jury or sustain the verdict as a matter of law.” State v.
Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 10, citing State
v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). When reviewing
whether the State has presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction,
“the relevant inquiry is whether any rational finder of fact, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the
essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State
v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 430,
683 N.E.2d 1096 (1997), citing Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319,
99 S.Ct. 2781,
61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). A
guilty verdict will not be disturbed on appeal unless, “reasonable minds
could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier-of-fact.” Id.
State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27001,
2016-Ohio-7329, ¶ 6.
{¶ 14} As previously stated, Hill was convicted of misdemeanor assault in violation
of R.C. 2903.13(A), which provides in pertinent part that “[n]o person shall knowingly
cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another ….”
{¶ 15} On appeal, Hill argues that Messiah was not a credible witness because
-7-
of certain alleged inconsistencies in her testimony, namely: 1) where Messiah stopped
her vehicle on Wildwood Avenue when she was assaulted; 2) whether Tonya was still in
Messiah’s vehicle when the assault occurred; and 3) the extent of her injuries as a result
of being pepper-sprayed by Hill. Hill also argues that Messiah’s testimony was not
credible because she could not remember which hand Hill used to pepper-spray her or
how Hill’s hair was arranged on the day of the assault.
{¶ 16} Initially, we note that where Messiah’s car was parked in relation to her
brother’s house on Wildwood Avenue when the assault occurred was of minimal
significance regarding whether Hill pepper-sprayed Messiah in her vehicle. The same is
true of whether Tonya was a passenger in Messiah’s vehicle when the assault occurred.
As previously noted, Messiah testified that before driving to her brother’s house on
Wildwood Avenue, she and Tonya stopped at a store, and Tonya exited the vehicle and
went into the store. Core and Hill then drove in front of Messiah and began asking her
questions about money which had allegedly been paid to Messiah’s brother. At trial,
Messiah testified as follows:
The State: What was Damonica Core’s response to your saying where the
money was?
Messiah: She said I stole her money.
Q: Ok. What happened next?
A: Tonya got in the car. I pulled off. I traveled down Gettysburg. I hit a
left on Cornell and then I hit a right on Salem Avenue. By that time they
were still following me the whole way there. I traveled all the way down. I
hit a right on Germantown and I hit a left on Broadway, South Broadway, to
-8-
go to where my brother’s house [sic]. I hit a left on East Stewart. They
were staying right behind. The[y] ran a stop sign. I turned on Wildwood
and that’s when I went….Wildwood is a dead end street, so you got to go
all the way down and turn around.
Q: Ok. And do you know someone that lives on Wildwood or…..
A: My brother lives on Wildwood.
Q: Your brother lives on Wildwood?
A: Yes.
Q: Ok. So, was it your intent to go to your brother’s home?
A: Yes.
Tr. 8-9.
{¶ 17} Later, the State again asked Messiah whether Tonya was still in the vehicle
when the assault occurred, and Messiah clarified her testimony as follows:
The State: Did you get to your brother’s house?
Messiah: When I got to it, I had to go down the street to turn around to park
in front of his house. When I came down the street to turn around, they
stopped, like in front of me, to block me off and I told them to move before I
hit their car. I……basically I was trying to scare them. They moved the
car and then I pulled in out in front…..in front of my brother’s house and
then I stopped.
Q: Ok. And is your passenger still in the vehicle at this time?
A: No. No.
Q: Where did your passenger get dropped off? At the store?
-9-
A: At the store.
Q: Ok. So, when you left the store your passenger stayed at the store?
A: Yes.
Q: So, you pull up in front of your brother’s house. Do you have any
problems parking front of your brother’s house?
A: No.
Tr. 10.
{¶ 18} At that point, Core rear-ended Messiah’s vehicle. Messiah then observed
Hill exit Core’s vehicle. As Hill approached Messiah’s vehicle, she asked, “Where’s the
money?” Tr. 12, 28. Hill then walked up to Messiah’s open driver’s window. Messiah
testified that she observed Hill raise her hand. Messiah testified that her face and eyes
immediately began burning and she had trouble breathing. Simply put, it is undisputed
that after asking Messiah about money in the parking lot of the store, Core and Hill
followed Messiah to her brother’s house and rear-ended Messiah’s vehicle, at which point
Hill walked over to Messiah’s vehicle and sprayed her in the face with pepper spray.
{¶ 19} Additionally, Hill’s assertion that Core testified that she had no recollection
of being on Wildwood Avenue on the day of the assault is not supported by the record.
During her direct examination, Core testified that she remembered being on Wildwood
Avenue, but she had not known the name of the street at the time of the assault. While
Core testified that Hill never got out of the vehicle on Wildwood Avenue and did not pepper
spray Messiah, the trial court apparently did not find her testimony to be credible in that
regard.
{¶ 20} The State also adduced evidence regarding the nature and extent of
-10-
Messiah’s injuries. Specifically, Messiah testified that she observed Hill walk to the
driver’s window of her vehicle; Hill raised her hand, at which point Messiah felt her face
and eyes immediately begin burning and she had trouble breathing. As previously
stated, Officer Smith testified that he observed at the police station that Messiah’s eyes
were tearing up and her face was swollen. Officer Smith also testified that he detected
the distinct odor of pepper spray emanating from the interior of Messiah’s vehicle.
Officer Smith also corroborated the events surrounding the incident based upon the
damage to Messiah’s and Core’s vehicles. We also note that Core, the sole defense
witness, acknowledged her prior conviction for falsification in 2017.
{¶ 21} Having reviewed the record, we find no merit in Hill's manifest-weight
challenge. It is well-settled that evaluating witness credibility is primarily for the trier of
fact. State v. Benton, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2010-CA-27, 2012-Ohio-4080, ¶ 7. Here the
trial court quite reasonably credited the testimony provided by the State's witnesses,
applied said evidence and all reasonable inferences to the elements of the offense, and
found Hill guilty of assault. Whether Hill used pepper spray during her attack on Messiah
was a question of fact for the trial court to decide. Having reviewed the entire record, we
cannot clearly find that the evidence weighs heavily against conviction, or that a manifest
miscarriage of justice has occurred.
{¶ 22} Furthermore, construing the evidence presented in a light most favorable to
the State, as we must, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found all of the
essential elements of the crime for which Hill was indicted and found guilty to have been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Hill's conviction for assault therefore was supported
by legally sufficient evidence.
-11-
{¶ 23} Hill’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 24} Both of Hill’s assignments of error having been overruled, the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
.............
TUCKER, P.J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Jordan L. Blake
Stephanie Cook
Maria L. Rabold
Hon. Christopher D. Roberts
