[Cite as State v. Gallagher,
2023-Ohio-2124.]
COURT OF APPEALS
COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vsCase No. 2022CA0032
NATHAN S. GALLAGHER
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Coshocton Municipal
Court, Case No. CRB2200375
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 26, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
ROBERT SKELTON JEFFREY G. KELLOGG
Coshocton Law Director 5 South Washington Street
Millersburg, Ohio 44654
RICHARD J. SKELTON
Assistant Law Director
760 Chestnut Street
Coshocton, Ohio 43812
Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0032 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Nathan Gallagher appeals his conviction and sentence
entered by the Coshocton Municipal Court, on one count of endangering children,
following a bench trial. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} On June 13, 2022, a complaint was filed in the Coshocton Municipal Court,
charging Appellant with one count of endangering children, in violation of R.C.
2919.22(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. Appellant appeared before the trial court
for arraignment on the same day and entered a plea of not guilty. The trial court released
Appellant on his own recognizance.
{¶3} The matter proceeded to bench trial on September 28, 2022. The following
evidence was adduced at trial:
{¶4} Erin Mack is the mother of three children, a 13-year-old daughter (“V.B.”), a
4-year-old daughter, and a 3-year-old son. Appellant is her son’s father. Mack and
Appellant arranged for Appellant to have visitation with the two youngest children on June
12, 2022. Mack planned to pick up the children at 8:00 p.m. Prior to the scheduled pick-
up time, Mack contacted Appellant, advised him she was running late, and asked him if
he would keep the children overnight or until she returned later in the evening. Appellant
refused, explaining he had plans and had to work the next day. Mack and Appellant
continued to communicate as Mack traveled back to town. Appellant eventually told Mack
he needed to drop off the children and subsequently brought them to the home of
Christine Ross where Mack was temporarily staying. V.B. was at the Ross home, but
had been instructed not to open the door for anyone. Appellant left the two youngest
children on the porch. Mack returned twenty to thirty minutes later.
Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0032 3
{¶5} Mack indicated V.B. had watched the younger children before and was
comfortable doing so. However, V.B. was upset because she did not know what to do as
she had been instructed not to open the door for anyone, but did not want to leave her
siblings outside. Mack explained Appellant was sitting in his vehicle in a nearby alley
while the children were on the porch. Mack acknowledged she and Appellant had
renewed their relationship.
{¶6} Christine Ross testified Mack and her three children occasionally would stay
at her home. On June 12, 2022, Ross was away from the residence, running
errands. Her son, Marcus Ross, contacted her to tell her he had received a text from
Appellant, who asked Marcus to text Ross and tell her he (Appellant) was dropping Mack’s
two youngest children at her home. Ross instructed Marcus to tell Appellant she was not
home and not to drop off the children. Appellant was already at the Ross home,
disregarded Ross’s instructions, deposited the children on the porch, and left. When
Ross returned to her residence, the two youngsters were inside with V.B. Appellant “was
nowhere in sight.” Transcript of September 28, 2022 Bench Trial at 14. Ross contacted
the Sheriff’s Department.
{¶7} Ross described V.B. as upset as she did not know what to do. Ross stated
she told V.B., “I understand you let them in, but you were told not to open the door for
anybody. That is not your home and you had no business doing any of that.” Id. at 16.
Ross believed the children were in danger “[b]ecause [V.B.] is not a babysitter. … she
lies, she steals, she does mean things to the kids. No, I’ve seen, I’ve seen what happens,
she was not a, she’s not a babysitter.” Id.
Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0032 4
{¶8} Sergeant Wesly Wright Eppley with the Coshocton County Sheriff’s Office
testified he received a call from Ross indicating Appellant had dropped the two young
children at her home when no one was there to supervise them. Sergeant Eppley
proceeded to the Ross home. Ross informed Sergeant Eppley V.B. was “hysterical
because she didn’t know what to do with the two (2) younger children once she was there
alone.” Id. at 24.
{¶9} Sergeant Eppley subsequently spoke with Mack, who informed him
Appellant was supposed to have the children overnight for his visitation. Mack explained
Appellant told her he could not keep the children overnight and planned to drop them off
although she told Appellant there was no one to supervise the children. Sergeant Eppley
also spoke with Appellant. Appellant admitted he dropped off the children, but “thought
he seen somebody inside the window who was possibly an adult.” Id. at 25. Appellant
was unable to tell Sergeant Eppley who the person was. Appellant could not explain why
he left the children at the residence knowing no one was there to supervise them.
Appellant also admitted he was told not to drop the children at the home.
{¶10} On re-direct, Mack identified the written statement she gave to Sergeant
Eppley on the evening of the incident. Mack read the statement into the record:
Nathan Gallagher, my child’s father was supposed to keep the kids
for the night – his visitation. He then decided to drop them off at my friend’s
house without anyone being present. I was out for the night, my thirteen-
year-old was home. Nathan then showed up around nine (9) and dropped
my children off to my thirteen-year-old without adult supervision. I was
Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0032 5
headed home and trying to get there before he abandoned them and he
made numerous threats towards my friend Marcus Ross and threatened to
abandon my children at the house of my friend. Id. at 30.
{¶11} When questioned about the disparity between the use of the word
“abandon” in her statement to Sergeant Eppley and her testimony at trial V.B. watches
the children all the time, Mack explained, “Right, but like I said I was under the impression
at first that he (Appellant) had left the property completely and I think that that’s what I
meant by abandon; I [sic] was that he had dropped them off and left.” Id. Questioned
further, Mack stated, “I mean maybe [abandon] was a wrong choice of words I guess.”
Id. Mack added, “No, I feel that he left the children there, but what he did was stupid, but
I think abandoned was probably the wrong word to use.” Id. Mack continued, “What he
did was stupid and wrong, but he didn’t, he still had eyes on them then they weren’t in
danger.” Id. at 32.
{¶12} Appellant testified in his own defense. Appellant stated Mack contacted him
and asked if he could keep the children overnight. Appellant informed Mack he could not
because he had to work in the morning. Appellant offered to drop the children at Ross’s
home, but Mack told him she would be back soon. Appellant subsequently brought the
children to Ross’s home because people at his residence had started drinking and he did
not want the children around anybody drinking.
{¶13} Appellant and his two friends transported the children to Ross’s home.
Appellant’s two friends walked the children to the front door. Appellant remained in the
car as he was not allowed on the property. Appellant’s friends knocked several times,
Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0032 6
but no one answered. As they turned to walk back the vehicle, V.B. answered the door
and took the children inside. Appellant stated they left the residence after the children
were inside the house. Appellant denied leaving the children unattended on the porch.
{¶14} After hearing all the evidence, the trial court found Appellant guilty,
sentenced him to thirty days in jail, and imposed court costs and fines. The trial court
suspended Appellant’s sentence, placed him on supervised probation for a period of one
year, and ordered him to complete a parenting program. The trial court memorialized
Appellant’s conviction and sentence via Judgment Entry filed September 28, 2022.
{¶15} It is from this conviction and sentence Appellant appeals, raising the
following error:
APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING R.C. 2919.22(A),
ENDANGERING CHILDREN, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT
OR SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
I
{¶16} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant challenges his conviction for
endangering children as against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
{¶17} The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence
are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
paragraph two of the syllabus (1997). Sufficiency of the evidence is a test of adequacy
as to whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a verdict as a matter of law,
while weight of the evidence addresses the evidence's effect of inducing belief.
Id. at 386–
Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0032 7
387. A finding a conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence, however,
necessarily includes a finding the conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and will
therefore be dispositive of the issues of sufficiency of the evidence. State v. McCrary,
10th Dist. No. 10AP-881,
2011-Ohio-3161, ¶ 11.
{¶18} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, the appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror and “in reviewing the entire record,
weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses,
and determines whether in resolving conflicts in evidence the jury ‘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, supra at 387, quoting State v. Martin,
20 Ohio
App. 3d 172, 175,
485 N.E.2d 717 (1983).
{¶19} “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, paragraph two of the syllabus
(1991).
{¶20} Appellant was convicted of one count of child endangering, in violation of
R.C. 2919.22(A), which provides, in relevant part:
Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0032 8
No person, who is the parent, guardian, custodian, person having
custody or control, or person in loco parentis of a child under eighteen years
of age or a child with a mental or physical disability under twenty-one 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.
…
R.C. 2919.22(A).
{¶21} At trial, Mack testified Appellant had visitation with the two young children
on June 12, 2022. Mack planned to pick up the children at 8:00 p.m., however, she was
running late and asked Appellant to either keep the children overnight or keep them until
she returned. Appellant refused and, instead, took them to the home of Christine Ross,
where Mack and her three children were temporarily staying. Appellant knew there was
no adult at the residence to supervise the children. Appellant was specifically told not to
bring the children to Ross’s home. Although V.B., Mack’s 13-year-old daughter was at
the Ross home, she had been instructed not to open the door for anyone or to let anyone
in the house. Appellant left the two young children on the front porch and left. Eventually,
V.B. opened the door and brought her siblings inside. When Ross returned home, she
called the Coshocton County Sheriff’s Office.
{¶22} Sergeant Eppley spoke with Mack when she arrived at Ross’s home. Mack
informed him Appellant was supposed to have the children overnight for his visitation.
Mack explained Appellant subsequently informed her he could not keep the children
overnight and planned to drop them off at Ross’s home despite the fact she told him no
Coshocton County, Case No. 2022CA0032 9
one was there to supervise the children. Sergeant Eppley also spoke with Appellant.
Appellant admitted he dropped off the children, but “thought he seen somebody inside
the window who was possibly an adult.” Tr. at 25. Appellant was unable to tell Sergeant
Eppley who the person was. Appellant could not explain why he left the children at the
residence knowing no one was there to supervise them. Appellant also admitted he was
told not to drop the children at the home.
{¶23} Based upon the foregoing and the entire record in this matter, we find
Appellant's conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was based
upon sufficient evidence.
{¶24} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶25} The judgment of the Coshocton Municipal Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur
