[Cite as State v. Crumpler,
2024-Ohio-2309.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 3-23-10
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
NYQUAN CRUMPLER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 22-CR-0170
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: June 17, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Autumn D. Adams for Appellant
Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee
Case No. 3-23-10
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ny’Quan Crumpler (“Crumpler”) brings this
appeal from the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Crawford County finding
him guilty of one count of felonious assault and illegal possession of a firearm in a
liquor permit premises. On appeal, Crumpler alleges that the convictions are against
the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment
is affirmed.
{¶2} This case stems from a bar fight on June 4, 2022. Crumpler and his co-
defendant, Dennis Heefner (“Heefner”) were having an argument when Crumpler
left and went to his car. Crumpler then returned with what appeared to be a firearm.
Crumpler and Heefner attacked the victim with Crumpler allegedly striking the
victim twice with the firearm. Heefner later held the firearm using it to hold off
other bar patrons as Crumpler stomped on the victim. The fight was eventually
stopped and the police were called. Before the police arrived, the victim left the
bar. The victim subsequently refused to give a statement to the police.
{¶3} On June 7, 2022, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted Crumpler
on one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2),(D)(1)(a), a
felony of the second degree, and one count of illegal possession of a firearm in
liquor permit premises in violation of R.C. 2923.121(A), (E), a felony of the third
degree. A firearm specification was attached to count one and the second count
carried a specification that the firearm was concealed.
-2-
Case No. 3-23-10
{¶4} A jury trial was held on December 15 and 16, 2022. At the trial, the
parties stipulated that the bar where the incident occurred had a Class D liquor
permit. The State then presented the following evidence.
{¶5} Michael Zaika testified that he owns the bar in question. In the bar, a
camera system records what happens inside and outside the premises. On June 4,
2022, the cameras were working properly.
{¶6} Officer Andrew Rehm (“Rehm”) testified that he worked for the Galion
Police Department on June 4, 2022. On that day, Rehm responded to a call from a
bar regarding a fight with a gun involved. When Rehm arrived, everyone was
standing around on the patio, but no one was fighting. Rehm learned from witnesses
that the people involved in the fight were no longer there. From witnesses, Rehm
learned that Heefner was one of the people involved. While at the bar, Rehm
watched the video footage from the fight. Rehm obtained a copy of the footage
before he left the bar. The footage showed one of the participants go to his car, put
what appeared to be a gun in his pocket, and then reenter the patio area of the bar.
{¶7} After leaving the bar, Rehm and other officers went looking for the car
on the video around the area where Heefner resides. Rehm found the car in a
driveway of a house on Cherry Street at approximately 3 a.m. Eventually Rehm
received a warrant and searched the home. Tr. 195. No firearms were found in the
home. On cross-examination Rehm testified that none of the participants in the fight
were at the bar when he arrived, two minutes after the call was received by 911.
-3-
Case No. 3-23-10
{¶8} Officer Timothy Duncan (“Duncan”) testified that he was working
night shift for the Galion Police Department on June 4, 2022. When he arrived at
the bar, he was told by the complainant that Heefner and his friend had jumped
another individual. The complainant told him that Heefner lived on Cherry St.
When they went to Cherry St. and found the vehicle, Duncan ran the registration
and found that it belonged to Crumpler. Duncan then pulled Crumpler’s photo from
the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Duncan testified that the picture looked like the
person in the video. On cross-examination, Duncan stated that none of the people
involved in the fight were present when he arrived.
{¶9} Detective Darren Patrick (“Patrick”) of the Galion Police Department
testified that he investigated the fight at the bar. Patrick helped search Heefner’s
home and did not find any firearms or anything that looked like a firearm. Later
Patrick obtained a search warrant to search Crumpler’s vehicle. No firearms, or
anything that looked like a firearm, were found in the vehicle. Crumpler eventually
called the station to get his car back. On June 9, 2022, Crumpler came to the station
and was arrested on a warrant. When questioned, Crumpler admitted to the fight,
but claimed the victim had been threatening to kill him with a gun. Crumpler denied
going to the car to retrieve a gun. Crumpler then claimed that he took the gun from
the victim. Patrick testified that Exhibit 3 was a video showing Crumpler going to
his car and then returning with what appeared to be the gun. In Exhibit 4, Patrick
pointed out the object in Crumpler’s hand, which Patrick believed to be a firearm.
-4-
Case No. 3-23-10
Patrick testified that the video in Exhibit 5 showed Heefner starting the fight by
striking the victim’s friend. Heefner then hit the victim. While Heefner hit the
victim, Crumpler appears to be pulling a firearm from his right front pocket. Later,
Crumpler is seen hitting the victim while Heefner holds the gun. Then Crumpler
took the gun from Heefner and points the gun at the head of the victim in a
threatening manner. In exhibit 9, Crumpler is seen leaving the patio of the bar with
what appears to be a firearm in his hand. Eventually Crumpler and Heefner are seen
on the video leaving the parking lot in the vehicle owned by Crumpler. On redirect,
Patrick testified that when Patrick interviewed Crumpler, Crumpler admitted that
there was a firearm involved in the fight. However, Crumpler claimed that the
firearm was taken from the victim.
{¶10} On cross-examination Patrick testified that he believes Crumpler was
holding a firearm based upon the appearance. The person who called the police,
who Patrick believed to be the bartender, indicated to the dispatcher that the patron
involved in the fight had a firearm. Additionally, Patrick believes it to be a firearm
and not a BB gun from the way in which Crumpler is carrying it, his pointing it at
people, and the reactions of the people to the item. However, Patrick admitted that
he is not an expert in identifying what is a firearm merely from a picture.
{¶11} Following the testimony of Patrick, the State rested its case. Crumpler
then testified on his own behalf. Crumpler testified that while in the bar, the victim
threatened to kill Crumpler. Crumpler testified that the victim had previously
-5-
Case No. 3-23-10
stabbed a friend of Crumpler’s in the neck. Tr. 283. According to Crumpler, the
“firearm” was really a BB gun, but it fell out in the parking lot when he was leaving.
Crumpler admitted to punching the victim, but denied hitting him with any type of
weapon. After the victim threatened Crumpler, he was going to leave and went to
the car. When Heefner did not come out with him, Crumpler grabbed the BB gun
because it looked like a weapon and went back inside.1 Crumpler denied striking
the victim with a chair or the firearm. According to Crumpler, the victim indicated
that he had a gun on him. Crumpler denied telling Patrick he had a firearm, but
claimed he had indicated he had a BB gun instead. After Crumpler testified, the
defense rested its case.
{¶12} The jury returned verdicts of guilty as to both counts and both
specifications. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on March 15, 2023. The
trial court sentenced Crumpler to an aggregate prison term of five to seven years.
Crumpler filed a notice of appeal from this judgment. On appeal, Crumpler raised
the following assignments of error.
First Assignment of Error
The manifest weight of the evidence did not prove Crumpler used
a deadly weapon to cause any physical injury to [the victim].
Second Assignment of Error
The manifest weight of the evidence did not prove Crumpler
carried a firearm into the bar.
1
A review of Exhibit 3 shows that Crumpler went to the car, opened the door, reached inside to grab
something, and then returned to the bar. Crumpler was at the car for approximately five seconds. Ex. 3.
-6-
Case No. 3-23-10
Legal Standard of Review
{¶13} Both assignments of error challenge the manifest weight of the
evidence.
When reviewing a judgment to determine if it is against the manifest
weight of the evidence, an appellate court “review[s] the entire record,
weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the
credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts
in the 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. Mendoza, 137 Ohio App.3d 336,
738
N.E.2d 822 (2000). See, also, State v. Thompkins,
78 Ohio St.3d 380,
387,
678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). A new trial should be granted only in the
exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against
conviction. Thompkins at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541. Although the
appellate court acts as a “thirteenth juror,” due deference to the
findings made by the fact-finder must still be given. State v. Moorer,
3d Dist. 13–12–22, 2013-Ohio-650,
2013 WL 684735, ¶ 29.
State v. Hulbert, 3d Dist. Van Wert No. 15-19-07,
2021-Ohio-2298, ¶ 23.
Felonious Assault
{¶14} In the first assignment of error, Crumpler claims that the conviction
for felonious assault was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the
State did not prove that he used a deadly weapon to cause any physical injury to the
victim. To prove felonious assault, as charged in this case, the State had to prove
that Crumpler 1) knowingly 2) caused or attempted to cause physical harm to
another 3) by means of a deadly weapon. R.C. 2903.11(A)(2). A “deadly weapon”
is defined as “any instrument, device, or thing capable of inflicting death, and
designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as
-7-
Case No. 3-23-10
a weapon.” R.C. 2923.11(A). Crumpler argues that the State failed to prove its case
because it did not prove that the victim suffered any physical harm. However, the
statute also covers attempts to cause physical harm. A review of the video exhibits
showed that Crumpler struck the victim multiple times with what appeared to be a
firearm and picked up a chair and struck the victim with that as well. Additionally,
Crumpler repeatedly struck the victim with his fists, kicked the victim, and even
body slammed him to the ground. Crumpler then pointed the suspected firearm at
the victim. Given this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Crumpler
was attempting to cause physical harm to the victim and that he did so by using a
deadly weapon, i.e. the firearm or the chair. Viewing the video exhibits, the Court
cannot find that the jury lost its way in determining that Crumpler committed a
felonious assault. The first assignment of error is overruled.
Possession of a Firearm
{¶15} Crumpler claims in the second assignment of error that his conviction
for possession of a firearm in the bar was against the manifest weight of the evidence
because there was no proof that the item possessed by Crumpler was a firearm and
not a BB gun as claimed by Crumpler. To prove this charge, the State had to show
the following: “(A) No person shall possess a firearm in any room in which any
person is consuming beer or intoxicating liquor in a premises for which a D permit
has been issued under Chapter 4303 of the Revised Code or in an open air arena for
which a permit of that nature has been issued.” R.C. 2923.121. A “firearm” is
-8-
Case No. 3-23-10
defined as “any deadly weapon capable of expelling or propelling one or more
projectiles by the action of an explosive or combustible propellant.” R.C.
2923.11(B)(1). The state can prove that an item is a “firearm” from the totality of
the circumstances such as the claims and actions of the person controlling the
alleged firearm. R.C. 2923.11(B)(2), State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-
Ohio-52,
678 N.E.2d 541 and State v. Murphy,
49 Ohio St.3d 206,
551 N.E.2d 932
(1990).
{¶16} The parties stipulated to the fact that the bar was a Class “D” liquor
permit holder as required by R.C. 2923.121(A). The lack of the actual alleged
firearm made it more difficult for the State to show that Crumpler possessed a
firearm rather than a BB gun. However, the State was able to present some evidence
for the jury to consider. The video exhibits showed Crumpler holding what
appeared to be a firearm. The testimony of Patrick was that the item appeared to be
a firearm and not a BB gun. Patrick testified that the item looked like a firearm,
Crumpler held it like it was a firearm, and the people at the bar believed it was a
firearm. Patrick also testified that Crumpler, when interviewed by Patrick, admitted
that he was holding a firearm that he had taken from the victim. Rehm testified that
person who called 911 indicated that they believed the item was a gun. Crumpler
testified that it was not a firearm, but rather a BB gun. Crumpler also indicated that
Patrick had misunderstood him and that he had never claimed the item was an actual
gun. Despite the conflicting evidence, the jury was able to weigh the evidence and
-9-
Case No. 3-23-10
reach a conclusion. The jury in this case determined the item to be a firearm, not a
BB gun as claimed by Crumpler. Given the evidence before it, we do not find that
the jury clearly lost its way or that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶17} Having found no prejudicial error in the particulars assigned and
argued by appellant, the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Crawford County
is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.
/hls
-10-
