[Cite as State v. Baker,
2023-Ohio-183.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2022-06-062
: OPINION
- vs - 1/23/2023
:
KALOB S. BAKER, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. 22 CRB 00923
Laura R. Gibson, City of Hamilton Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Christopher P. Frederick, for appellant.
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Kalob S. Baker, appeals the verdict reached by the Hamilton
Municipal Court finding him guilty of one count of first-degree misdemeanor domestic
violence. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On March 3, 2022, a complaint was filed charging Baker with one count of
domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a first-degree misdemeanor. The charge
Butler CA2022-06-062
arose after it was alleged Baker punched and slapped his step-uncle, Bryan Sapp, during
an altercation that took place on February 15, 2022, at their shared residence located in
Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio. The matter proceeded to a one-day bench trial on June 6,
2022. During trial, the trial court heard testimony from both Sapp and Baker. The following
is a summary of that testimony.
{¶ 3} Sapp testified that, on the day in question, Baker "launched an attack" on him
while they were both inside their shared Hamilton residence. Sapp testified this "attack"
lasted upwards of 15 minutes, during which Baker threw something at him, hit him on the
side of the face, jumped on his back multiple times, "rode" him down the front steps "like a
black belt judo guy" trying to break his neck, and put his finger in his mouth "puncturing" his
gums. Sapp testified Baker's conduct caused him to suffer physical harm to his person that
included injuries to his knees, headaches, and bruising to the side of his face.
{¶ 4} Baker, although acknowledging that he had thrown something at Sapp, and
while admitting that he did trip Sapp on the day in question causing him to fall to the ground,
testified and denied that he had ever caused Sapp to suffer any physical harm to his person.
Baker testified and denied that he had jumped on Sapp's back or that he had hit Sapp in
the face. Baker instead testified that because he knows jujutsu, "[i]f [he] was to cause harm,
[he] would cause harm," but that he has "no ill intent" towards anybody, including Sapp.
{¶ 5} Once both parties rested, and upon hearing closing arguments, the trial court
issued its verdict from the bench finding Baker guilty as charged. In reaching this decision,
the trial court noted that it had found Sapp's testimony credible given Sapp was "clear,"
"consistent," and "very specific" about what had happened to him. The trial court also noted
that it "believe[d]" Sapp's testimony that Baker had "rode" him down the front steps of their
shared Hamilton residence. This is in addition to the trial court noting that, "if you
intentionally trip someone and they fall down and they strike their head, that's causing
-2-
Butler CA2022-06-062
physical harm."
{¶ 6} After issuing its verdict, the trial court then immediately proceeded to
sentencing and sentenced Baker to a suspended 180-day jail term. The trial court also
ordered Baker to pay a fine of $300 plus court costs and placed Baker on community control
for a period of two years. The trial court further required Baker to take an anger
management class and mandated Baker have no contact with Sapp. Baker now appeals
the trial court's guilty verdict, raising the following single assignment of error for review.
{¶ 7} MR. BAKER'S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 8} In his single assignment of error, Baker argues the trial court's verdict finding
him guilty of domestic violence was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We
disagree.
{¶ 9} "A manifest weight of the evidence challenge examines the 'inclination of the
greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue rather
than the other.'" State v. Dean, 12th Dist. Madison Nos. CA2021-08-013 and CA2021-08-
014, 2022-Ohio-3105, ¶ 62, quoting State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177,
2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14. When determining whether a conviction is against the manifest
weight of the evidence, this court "must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and
all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether
in resolving the 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. Morgan, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2013-08-146 and CA2013-08-147,
2014-Ohio-2472, ¶ 34. This court will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of
the evidence "only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at trial
weighs heavily in favor of acquittal." State v. Kaufhold, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-09-
-3-
Butler CA2022-06-062
148, 2020-Ohio-3835, ¶ 10.
{¶ 10} Baker was found guilty of one count of first-degree misdemeanor domestic
violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). Pursuant to that statute, "[n]o person shall
knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member." "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). The phrase "physical harm to persons" is defined by R.C. 2901.01(A)(3) to
mean "any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or
duration." A "family or household member" includes any person "related by consanguinity
or affinity to the offender." R.C. 2919.25(F)(1)(a)(ii). The term "consanguinity" means "a
blood relationship." State v. Morton, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-93-27, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS
617, *9 (Feb. 14, 1994). "'Affinity' is defined, in part, as 'any familial relation resulting from
a marriage.'" Williams v. Workman, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22626,
2005-Ohio-5388, ¶ 8,
quoting Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.1999) 59.
{¶ 11} Baker argues the trial court "incorrectly" weighed the evidence, did not
"properly execute its fact-finding responsibilities," and failed to render "an appropriate
verdict" based on Sapp's trial testimony. However, "[a]s the trier of fact in this case, the trial
court was in the best position to judge the credibility of the parties and the weight to be
given the evidence." State v. Hilton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-03-064, 2015-Ohio-5198,
¶ 20. It is in fact well established that it is the trier of fact that makes determinations
regarding witness credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence presented at trial.
State v. Sparks, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-11-226,
2019-Ohio-3145, ¶ 10; State v. K.W.,
12th Dist. Warren No. CA2016-01-004,
2016-Ohio-7365, ¶ 26. The trial court was therefore
free to believe all, part, or none of Sapp's trial testimony. State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2017-04-049,
2017-Ohio-8535, ¶ 20. This holds true even if there were
-4-
Butler CA2022-06-062
inconsistencies within that testimony. State v. Schils, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2019-08-
067, 2020-Ohio-2883, ¶ 18.
{¶ 12} By its verdict, the trial court clearly chose to credit some, if not all, of Sapp's
trial testimony. See State v. Panzeca, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2019-03-023, 2020-Ohio-
326, ¶ 21. This includes Sapp's testimony that Baker "rode" him down the front steps This
also includes Sapp's testimony that Baker's "attack" caused him to suffer physical harm to
his person. "A conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because
the trier of fact believed the testimony offered by the prosecution." State v. Baker, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2019-08-146, 2020-Ohio-2882, ¶ 31. Such is the case here. See, e.g.,
State v. Watkins, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021-06-058,
2022-Ohio-500, ¶ 17 (appellant's
domestic violence conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where
the trial court found the victim's testimony that appellant caused her physically harm more
credible than appellant's testimony denying the same). Therefore, because the trial court's
verdict finding Baker guilty of domestic violence was not against the manifest weight of the
evidence, Baker's single assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.
{¶ 13} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.
-5-
