[Cite as State v. Carter,
2022-Ohio-3901.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-220030
TRIAL NO. 21CRB-18262
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
SAVOZ CARTER, : O P I N I O N.
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 2, 2022
Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney,
and Connor E. Wood, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and David H. Hoffmann,
Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
ZAYAS, Judge.
{¶1} Savoz Carter appeals his conviction for resisting arrest arguing that his
conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest
weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Factual Background
{¶2} Savoz Carter was charged with resisting arrest in violation of R.C.
2921.33(A), for recklessly resisting arrest. Carter pled not guilty and proceeded to a
bench trial.
{¶3} Officer Anthony Dawson testified that while on routine patrol, he saw a
vehicle illegally parked in the cul-de-sac of Topridge Street in Winton Terrace. The
car was missing license plates, so Dawson ran the VIN number through his computer.
The search revealed that the car was stolen, and that Savoz Carter, who was attached
to the vehicle, had outstanding warrants, including a felony warrant associated with
the car. Carter’s photograph popped up on his computer screen.
{¶4} Immediately, Dawson requested that dispatch send a tow truck and
another police cruiser to assist him. While speaking to dispatch, he saw Carter and a
woman walk out of a residence. As Carter approached him, Dawson recognized him
from the photo on his computer. Dawson decided to wait for additional officers to
arrive before arresting him.
{¶5} Dawson explained that felony arrests are ordinarily done at gunpoint
and with two officers present, one to give the commands, and one to handcuff the
individual. Because he was alone, Dawson pulled his Taser. He initially deployed the
Taser when Carter put his hand on the ground and appeared to push himself up.
Dawson was concerned that Carter might run, so he deployed his Taser. Dawson
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
deployed his Taser again because Carter appeared to be reaching in his pocket or his
waistband. At that point, another officer arrived and placed Carter in handcuffs.
{¶6} On cross-examination, Dawson agreed that Carter was calm, but
seemed agitated when ordered to the ground. Although Carter repeatedly asked why
he was under arrest, Dawson did not tell him because he wanted Carter to remain
calm. Dawson wanted Carter in a prone position because he could have easily jumped
up and run if he remained kneeling or sitting on the ground. Carter would also be less
of a threat if he were prone on the ground. Dawson confirmed that he never stood
within three feet of Carter and that the responding officer had no difficulty placing
Carter in handcuffs.
{¶7} During Dawson’s testimony and cross-examination, two videos of the
encounter were played. The videos depicted Dawson informing Carter that he was
under arrest and ordering him to lie down on the ground with his hands behind his
back. Carter knelt on the ground but refused to lie down or place his hands behind his
back. Instead, Carter continued to move, while raising his arm, and asking why he was
being arrested. Dawson continued to tell him to lie with his face on the ground and
warned Carter he would be tased if he refused. Carter refused and placed one hand on
the ground and lifted his body off the ground. Dawson walked behind him and tased
him in the back. While being tased, Carter tried to stand up then immediately fell to
the ground. A second officer arrived and placed handcuffs on Carter. Dawson and the
second officer helped Carter to his feet.
{¶8} On redirect, Dawson further explained that he did not tell Carter why he
was being arrested because he was afraid Carter would flee. Because Carter had felony
warrants, Dawson waited for another officer to physically handcuff Carter. The
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
responding officers arrived in six minutes.
{¶9} After Dawson’s testimony, the state rested, and Carter testified.
{¶10} Carter testified that he was in the process of moving into the home on
Topridge and had just unloaded items from the car. Carter had owned the vehicle and
the title since December of 2020, and had no knowledge that it had been reported
stolen. The car did not have license plates, and Carter had been cited several times for
driving without plates. Carter was unaware that warrants had been issued for his
arrest and was confused when Dawson ordered him to the ground and told him he was
being arrested. Although Carter went down to the ground, he did not lie face down
because he did not trust the officer. After Carter’s testimony, the defense rested. The
trial court found him guilty.
{¶11} Carter appeals, and in one assignment of error, argues that the
conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
Sufficiency and Manifest Weight
{¶12} In his sole assignment of error, Carter contends his conviction was not
supported by sufficient evidence and ran contrary to the manifest weight of the
evidence. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court
must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259,
574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶13} When considering a challenge to the weight of the evidence, an appellate
court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences,
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts
in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage
of justice. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387,
678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). We
afford substantial deference to credibility determinations because the factfinder sees
and hears the witnesses. See State v. Glover, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180572, 2019-
Ohio-5211, ¶ 30.
{¶14} Carter was convicted of resisting arrest under R.C. 2921.33(A), which
prohibits, in relevant part, “recklessly … resist[ing] or interfer[ing] with a lawful
arrest of the person.” First, the state is required to introduce evidence of a “lawful
arrest.” “[A] formal arrest is ‘not necessarily an instantaneous event,’ but instead is ‘a
process beginning with the seizure of a person, which can encompass acts necessary
to effect the formal charging of a crime.’ ” (Citation omitted.) State v. Curtin, 11th
Dist. Ashatubla No. 2020-A-0010, 2020-Ohio-4189, ¶ 16.
{¶15} Here, there is no dispute that Dawson was in the process of arresting
Carter, and the arrest was lawful due to the outstanding warrants.
{¶16} Next, the state was required to introduce sufficient evidence that Carter
“resist[ed] or interfer[ed]” with his lawful arrest “recklessly.” R.C. 2921.33(A). The
resisting-arrest statute does not define “resist” or “interfere.” However, the Ohio Jury
Instructions provide the following definition: “ ‘Resist or interfere’ means to oppose,
obstruct, hinder, impede, interrupt, or prevent an arrest by a law enforcement officer
by the use of force or recklessly by any means, such as going limp, or any other passive
or indirect conduct.” 3 Ohio Jury Instructions, CR Section 521.33 (Rev. May 22,
2021). “A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences,
the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person’s conduct is
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature.” R.C. 2901.22(C).
{¶17} In this case, the evidence established that Carter repeatedly refused to
submit to Dawson’s commands to lie on the ground and place his hands behind his
back. Although given repeated opportunities to submit to Dawson’s authority, Carter
continued to move around on the ground, raise his arms, and lift his body. Viewing
the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, Carter understood the nature
of his conduct, but nevertheless proceeded with heedless indifference to the
consequences. We hold therefore, that the evidence could convince a rational trier of
fact that Carter recklessly resisted or interfered with his arrest. We overrule the sole
assignment of error.
Conclusion
{¶18} We overrule the assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
Judgment affirmed.
MYERS, P.J., and BOCK, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.
6
