[Cite as State v. Williams,
2024-Ohio-5076.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NOS. C-240064
C-240037
Plaintiff-Appellee, : TRIAL NO. B-2300129
:
VS. O P I N I O N.
:
DARRYL WILLIAMS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 23, 2024
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and John D. Hill, Jr.,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Michael J. Trapp, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Darryl Williams appeals from the trial court’s
judgment convicting him of felonious assault. In two assignments of error, he argues
that the prosecutor committed misconduct by vouching for the truthfulness and
honesty of the State’s witnesses and that his conviction was against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
{¶2} While we agree that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the
credibility of the State’s witnesses, Williams, who failed to object to the prosecutor’s
comments during trial, has not established plain error. We further hold that Williams’s
conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and we affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶3} Williams was indicted for felonious assault, a second-degree felony, in
violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1). The victim of this offense was S.R.
{¶4} At a jury trial, S.R. testified that she first befriended Williams
approximately four-to-five years earlier when she was working as a prostitute. S.R. did
not have permanent housing and would stay with Williams for occasional periods of
time. She was staying with Williams on January 5, 2023. S.R. testified that, on that
date, she and Williams had been drinking and using drugs. After the two engaged in
sexual relations, S.R. questioned Williams about the nature of their relationship. In
response, Williams hit her and directed his pit bull to “get that bitch.” According to
S.R., the dog attacked her and she blacked out. She does not recall how long the dog
was on top of her.
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶5} S.R. went to the hospital after the attack. She testified that she suffered
a pinched nerve and a herniated disc, both of which required physical therapy. The
nerve damage caused her to continually drop items and experience a sharp pain in her
arm. Photographs depicting S.R.’s injuries were admitted into evidence, and S.R.
identified bite marks from the pit bull and a swollen eye and lip caused by Williams
punching her in the face.
{¶6} On cross-examination, S.R. testified that she takes medication for
bipolar disorder and that she had been off her medication when this incident occurred.
She also stated that she was intoxicated at the time of the attack. S.R. denied punching
Williams or destroying any of his property prior to the dog’s attack. She further
testified that Williams’s dog is very protective of him.
{¶7} The State presented additional testimony from James Allen, a bystander
who witnessed the dog’s attack on S.R. and the events that happened after S.R. blacked
out. Allen testified that he did not know either Williams or S.R. prior to the events of
January 5, 2023. That morning, Allen had visited a rental property that he owned.
While outside the property, he saw the door to a nearby building open and a
completely nude woman tossed out of the building. Allen heard a man, whom he
identified at trial as Williams, yell, “You stupid bitch. How dare you?” Allen then heard
the man say, “get her” and saw a dog exit from the house and jump on the woman.
According to Allen, the dog clamped onto the woman’s arm while she screamed for the
man to halt the attack. The man continued to curse at the woman and stated, “It does
what I say do,” before going back inside and slamming the door.
{¶8} Allen testified that the dog continued to gnaw on the woman. Eventually
the door opened again, and Williams threw clothes and a suitcase outside before
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
calling the dog inside. The dog obeyed and released the woman. The woman started to
get dressed, yelling and screaming as she did so. According to Allen, the dog was then
let back outside with an instruction from Williams to “get her.” The dog obeyed and
started chewing on the partially clothed woman, causing her to fall to the ground. At
that point, Allen called 911. Williams eventually called the dog back inside.
{¶9} Cincinnati Police Officer Deon Cromwell testified that he responded to
a call regarding a pit bull attacking a female subject. Upon arriving at the scene, he
saw S.R. lying on the sidewalk and bleeding profusely. Williams came out of his home
and spoke to Officer Cromwell, stating that he and S.R. had gotten into an argument
after he asked her if she was in love with him. Williams further told Officer Cromwell
that S.R. had attacked him and that the dog was defending him. Officer Cromwell
testified that he did not recall seeing any injuries on Williams. Video from Officer
Cromwell’s body-worn camera was admitted and played for the jury. Officer Cromwell
agreed on cross-examination that Williams readily provided information and was not
stumbling or swaying. And he stated that he never entered Williams’s apartment to
see if it contained signs of a struggle.
{¶10} Williams testified that S.R. has stayed with him off and on over the past
several years. Williams portrayed S.R. as a violent and destructive person. He testified
that she had previously damaged his property when he asked her to move out of his
home, and that her violent behavior instigated the events that led to his arrest on
January 5, 2023.
{¶11} According to Williams, S.R. had been drinking and smoking that
morning. He testified that she became enraged over what she perceived to be a crude
joke told by Williams, and she began attacking him. Williams’s dog defended him and
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
bit down on S.R.’s forearm. According to Williams, he was able to wrestle the dog off
of S.R. When he told S.R. to leave, she started to fight him again, causing the dog to
bite her hand. While Williams attempted to shut the dog in the kitchen, S.R. destroyed
his bedroom. She knocked down his television, broke his television stand, broke a
table, and threw his glasses. The dog was able to get out of the kitchen, and it entered
the bedroom and bit S.R. on the shoulder.
{¶12} While returning the dog to the kitchen, Williams heard banging on his
door. He walked S.R. to the door and opened it to find his neighbor Derrick, whom he
testified was S.R.’s cousin and the owner of his building. Williams thought it would be
best to place S.R. in Derrick’s care and to “put her outside.” Williams admitted that he
was a little rough when doing so, and that S.R. stumbled and fell. After noticing that
S.R. was not wearing pants, Williams retrieved some clothing for her.
{¶13} Williams described his dog as a guard dog that was very protective of
him, particularly when any aggression was directed his way. He stated that the dog
had never previously attacked S.R. and was an obedient dog that listened to his
commands. Williams denied ordering the dog to attack S.R.
{¶14} On cross-examination, the State questioned Williams about the
discrepancy between the explanation that he provided to Officer Cromwell regarding
his fight with S.R. and the explanation that he provided at trial. Williams stated that
the incident he relayed to Officer Cromwell had happened a few days earlier. Williams
also testified on cross-examination that he had only tossed one outfit and a pair of
pajama shorts outside for S.R. He denied throwing out all her belongings.
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶15} The jury returned a verdict finding Williams guilty of felonious assault.
The trial court sentenced Williams to an indefinite term of eight to 12 years’
imprisonment. Williams now appeals.
II. Improper Vouching
{¶16} In his first assignment of error, Williams argues that he was denied a
fair trial and due process of law by the State’s vouching for the truthfulness and
honesty of its witnesses.
{¶17} Williams identifies two instances in which he contends that the
prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of the State’s witnesses during
closing argument. The first instance occurred when the prosecutor stated, “Now, [S.R.]
was honest,” when summarizing S.R.’s testimony. In conjunction with this statement,
the prosecutor acknowledged that S.R. admitted to blacking out after drinking and
doing drugs and to a lack of recall of all that had happened. The prosecutor
commented, “She didn’t make up something different. She didn’t try to tell you a
bunch of details she didn’t know about.”
{¶18} Williams claims that the second instance of alleged improper vouching
occurred when the prosecutor stated:
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m not going to speculate on what went on
inside that apartment, but I can tell you that everything matches up with
what went on outside of it, and that [S.R.] was truthful, honest, and
consistent with what she said.
Mr. Allen, truthful[,] honest, consistent with what he said.
And, Officer Cromwell, truthful, honest, consistent with what he said.
Mr. Williams, inconsistent, not completely honest.
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
No objection was raised to these statements.
{¶19} In reviewing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we must determine
whether the prosecutor’s remarks were improper, and, if so, whether they prejudicially
affected the defendant’s substantial rights. State v. Morrissette, 2018-Ohio-3917, ¶ 30
(1st Dist).
{¶20} The law is clear that “[i]t is improper for a prosecutor to vouch for the
credibility of a witness at trial.” State v. Myers, 2018-Ohio-1903, ¶ 145; see State v.
Hall,
2019-Ohio-2985, ¶ 36 (1st Dist.). “Vouching occurs when the prosecutor implies
knowledge of facts outside the record or places his or her personal credibility in issue.”
Myers at ¶ 145. This includes expressing a personal belief or opinion regarding a
witness’s credibility.
Id. A prosecutor may, however, “comment on ‘considerations that
the jury could properly consider in evaluating [a witness’s] credibility: his demeanor,
consistency, and opportunity to observe, as well as the extent to which other evidence
corroborated his testimony.’” (Bracketed text in original.) State v. Hayes, 2020-Ohio-
5322, ¶ 43 (1st Dist.), quoting
Myers at ¶ 147.
{¶21} We find no impropriety in the prosecutor’s first comment that, “[S.R.]
was honest.” In context, this statement was made in conjunction with the prosecutor’s
remark that S.R. admitted she could not remember everything that happened after the
dog attacked her. The prosecutor was not vouching for S.R.’s testimony in its entirety,
but rather acknowledging that S.R. did not fabricate details and honestly admitted her
lack of memory.
{¶22} The latter group of statements made by the prosecutor are more
troubling. These statements followed a discussion by the prosecutor about the
inconsistencies in Williams’s testimony and the fact that Allen’s testimony did not
7
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
corroborate the testimony offered by Williams. While the prosecutor was permitted to
point out the extent to which a witness’s testimony was corroborated by other
evidence, see Hayes at ¶ 43, the prosecutor was not entitled to express his personal
belief about a witness’s credibility. See Myers at ¶ 145.
{¶23} In State v. Tucker, 2003-Ohio-6056, ¶ 23 (1st Dist.), this court found
that a prosecutor’s statement that “they came in here and told the truth” constituted
improper vouching. In contrast, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the following
statement did not constitute improper vouching: “Did [the witness] have an
opportunity to see the things about which he was testifying? He certainly did. Was he
consistent? Yes he was. What was his demeanor like? When he came forward . . ., he
was very forthcoming.” (Ellipsis in original.) Myers,
2018-Ohio-1903, at ¶ 146. The
court held that this comment pointed out the strength of the witness’s testimony based
on other evidence presented and did not express the prosecutor’s personal opinion. Id.
at ¶ 147.
{¶24} In Hayes, this court reviewed a prosecutor’s comment that if a witness
was going to lie, then the witness “could have told a better lie.” Hayes, 2020-Ohio-
5322, at ¶ 45 (1st Dist.). We held that this comment was made in response to an attack
by defense counsel on the witness’s credibility and that it did not express the
prosecutor’s personal view of the witness’s credibility. Id. We also reviewed a comment
in which the prosecutor asked the jury to consider whether a witness had intended to
omit information when placing an emergency call or whether the witness had made a
mistake in omitting the information. We again found that this comment was not
improper, stating that it “did not express the prosecutor’s personal opinion of [the
witness’s] credibility.” Id. at ¶ 46.
8
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶25} The statements in the case at bar are more akin to those in Tucker than
those in Myers and Hayes. The prosecutor clearly stated that each of his three
witnesses were “honest” and “truthful,” and that Williams was “not completely
honest.” These comments expressed the prosecutor’s personal belief. Further, they
were given in the State’s opening portion of closing arguments and were not made in
response to an attack by defense counsel on the credibility of a witness.
{¶26} Having held that the prosecutor’s remarks constituted improper
vouching, we must determine whether the comments impacted Williams’s substantial
rights. See Morrissette, 2018-Ohio-3917, at ¶ 30 (1st Dist.). Williams did not object to
any of these statements and has forfeited all but plain error. Id. at ¶ 31. To establish
plain error, a defendant must show that an error occurred, that the error was obvious,
and that it affected the defendant’s substantial rights, i.e., that it affected the outcome
of the trial. State v. Sowders,
2023-Ohio-4498, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.). A defendant meets this
last requirement by demonstrating a “reasonable probability” that the outcome of the
trial would have been different but for the error.
Id.
{¶27} On this record, we cannot find that there is a reasonable probability that
the outcome of the trial would have been different but for the prosecutor’s comments
vouching for the credibility of the State’s witnesses. Williams and S.R. presented
differing versions of the events that precipitated the dog’s attack on S.R. According to
S.R., Williams directed his pit bull to attack her. But according to Williams, the dog
came to his defense after he was attacked by S.R. The record also contains testimony
from Allen, a completely neutral third party who witnessed Williams command the
dog to attack S.R.
9
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶28} The credibility of both S.R. and Williams is subject to attack. S.R.
admitted that she had smoked and taken drugs just before this incident and that she
could not recall a large portion of the events that occurred. And Williams’s testimony
conflicted on several key points with that offered by other witnesses. While Williams
testified that his fight with S.R. was caused by her taking offense to a crude joke, he
told Officer Cromwell that the two argued after he asked S.R. if she was in love with
him. Williams also testified that he only threw one outfit and a pair of shorts out the
door to S.R., but Allen testified that Williams threw both clothing and a suitcase
outside. Notably, Officer Cromwell’s body-worn camera footage corroborated Allen’s
testimony on this point and depicted a suitcase and a large pile of clothing on the
sidewalk outside of Williams’s home.
{¶29} An additional discrepancy in the testimony between Williams and Allen
concerned how S.R. exited from the home. While Williams testified that he handed
S.R. off to her cousin, Allen testified that a naked S.R. was thrown out of the door.
Allen’s testimony never referenced a third person.
{¶30} Ultimately, the record contained testimony from an independent
witness who personally saw Williams order his dog to attack S.R. Williams’s version
of events was not corroborated by Allen’s testimony or the responding officer’s body-
worn camera, and was, in fact, contradicted by both. On this record, the evidence of
Williams’s guilt was overwhelming, and there is not a reasonable probability that the
outcome of the trial would have been different but for the prosecutor’s improper
remarks in closing arguments. We accordingly hold that Williams has failed to
establish plain error and overrule the first assignment of error.
10
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
III. Manifest Weight
{¶31} In his second assignment of error, Williams argues that his conviction
for felonious assault is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶32} When reviewing a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, this
court must “review the entire record, weigh the evidence, consider the credibility of
the witnesses, and determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created
a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Powell, 2020-Ohio-4283, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.),
citing State v. Thompkins,
78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). “‘When evidence is
susceptible to more than one construction, a reviewing court must give it the
interpretation that is consistent with the judgment.’” State v. Jordan, 2022-Ohio-
2566, ¶ 58 (1st Dist.), quoting In re J.C.,
2019-Ohio-4027, ¶ 20 (1st Dist.).
{¶33} As set forth in our plain-error discussion under the previous assignment
of error, the record contains conflicting testimony from S.R. and Williams regarding
the events that led to the attack on S.R. The record also contains testimony from Allen,
an independent witness that saw Williams order his dog to attack S.R. As the trier of
fact, the jury was in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses. State v.
DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Shepard,
2021-Ohio-964, ¶ 62 (1st Dist.). It was entitled to reject Williams’s testimony and to
believe the testimony offered by Allen that he saw Williams order his dog to attack
S.R., as well as S.R.’s testimony that Williams hit her and ordered his dog to attack
her. This was not the rare case in which the trier of fact lost its way and committed
such a manifest miscarriage of justice in convicting Williams that his conviction must
be reversed. See
Powell at ¶ 16.
11
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶34} The second assignment of error is accordingly overruled, and the trial
court’s judgment convicting Williams of felonious assault is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BOCK, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
12
