[Cite as State v. Carson,
2025-Ohio-166.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 113852
v. :
ISAIAH CARSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 23, 2025
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-21-661186-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Michael Timms, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
P. Andrew Baker, for appellant.
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, P.J.:
Defendant-appellant Isaiah Carson (“Carson”) appeals his conviction
for attempted felonious assault and assault. For the reasons that follow, we affirm
the convictions.
Factual and Procedural History
On May 31, 2021, there was an event at a local restaurant, a meet and
greet for businesspeople. Carson attended with his girlfriend, Amber Mays
(“Mays”). They were invited by Mike Burns, the nephew of Carson’s best friend,
Jermaine Burns (“Jermaine”), who was moving out of state, and this would give
them an opportunity to touch base. Jermaine, his sister Monique Burns
(“Monique”), and her fiancé Anthony Stewart (“Stewart”) also attended the event.
E.J., C.M., and approximately ten other women, including Monique, traveled to the
event together in a sprinter van. The organizer of the event had contracted with
Monique to style the group of women to attend his events, to ensure the success of
the venture.
Once the event ended, E.J. and C.M. got in the sprinter van to take
pictures. Carson was near the van talking to Monique and Stewart. From this point
forward, two stories emerged regarding what happened next.
Per C.M. and E.J., Carson approached them while they were sitting in
the sprinter van taking pictures and attempted to flirt with C.M. She told him she
was not interested, and Carson did not take that rejection well. E.J. overheard the
conversation and stepped in when she overheard Carson complain about “females”
with “attitudes.” E.J. insisted that Carson leave, at which point Carson became
increasingly aggressive, calling the women “out of their names”1 and shouting at
1 “Calling someone out of their name” is colloquialism used to refer to calling
someone, usually a woman, a pejorative name.
them. E.J. continued to tell Carson to leave, and then Carson hit E.J. twice. After
Carson hit E.J., several people approached Carson angrily, including C.M. C.M.
testified that Carson hit her twice and the only thing she remembered after that was
waking up in the hospital. Testimony and bodycam video established that C.M. was
unconscious on the ground at the scene. Her medical records established she
suffered loss of consciousness and a concussion.
In contrast, Carson testified that after the event, he walked his
girlfriend, Mays, to her car and told her he was going to see what people were going
to do since it was still early. He approached Monique and her fiancé Stewart who
were standing outside the sprinter van. While they were talking, E.J. walked up to
him and asked him who he was. Stewart explained that Carson was their friend.
E.J. seemed okay with that explanation. Carson made a joke, asking why she was
mad, and E.J. seemed to reciprocate and joked back that she was not mad. Carson
also noticed C.M. and described her as visibly intoxicated.
Carson, Monique, and Stewart started to walk away when E.J. walked
up to them again and asked them to go away because C.M. said they were all “corny.”
He said that C.M. was trying to start stuff. E.J. then got loud, and Carson responded
that she was the one “being corny.” E.J. followed him and kept telling him to just
go. Carson saw security get out of the van and thought he was going to address E.J.
Instead, the security guard approached Carson and told him he needed to leave. At
that point Carson told him it was public property, and he did not have to go
anywhere.
Per Carson, the security guard escalated the situation, and Carson
removed his jacket because he thought he might have to defend himself. Security
approached again with three or four women, including E.J. Mays saw that
something was wrong and exited the car to find out what was happening. E.J. told
Mays that Carson was trying to flirt with her, at which point Carson essentially called
E.J. “ugly,” which set things off. Per Carson, E.J. lunged at him and he either
mugged her or swatted her to push her away. It became a melee and all of the girls
charged Carson, along with some men. C.M. tried to grab him at some point, and he
mugged or swatted her as well. Per Carson, C.M. was still standing after that, and
he never saw her fall to the ground.
Jermaine did not see what happened. He walked his wife to their car;
when he turned back, he saw a group of people, 10-15 of them, that he described as
a mob. As he got closer, he realized they were charging Carson. Once he realized
Carson was in the center of the melee, Jermaine sprinted to intervene. He did not
see Carson hit anyone. Monique, likewise, did not see what caused the situation to
escalate. She testified that Carson was talking to her when C.M. started arguing with
Carson. At some point, the women got out of the van and charged Carson.
Carson was indicted on one count of felonious assault, serious
physical harm, against C.M.; assault against E.J.; and two counts of aggravated
menacing against each alleged victim. He elected to try the case to the bench. The
trial court ultimately found Carson guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted
felonious assault and assault and not guilty of the two counts of aggravated
menacing. The trial court sentenced Carson to a period of community-control
sanctions.
Carson appeals raising the following errors for our review:
Assignment of Error No. 1
Defendant-appellant’s conviction for attempted felonious assault was
not supported by sufficient evidence.
Assignment of Error No. 2
Defendant-appellant’s convictions for attempted felonious assault and
assault were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Law and Analysis
Sufficiency of the Evidence
In his first assignment of error, Carson argues that his conviction for
attempted felonious assault was not supported by sufficient evidence. In the instant
case, the trial court found Carson guilty of attempted felonious assault and not the
indicted offense of felonious assault.
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence tests whether the State
met its burden of production. State v. Hunter, 2006-Ohio-20, ¶ 41 (8th Dist.), citing
State v. Thompkins,
78 Ohio St.3d 380, 390 (1997). The reviewing court must
examine the evidence at trial and determine “‘whether such evidence, if believed,
would convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.’” State v. Goins,
2021-Ohio-1299, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Jenks,
61
Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. We must determine, “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.”
Id. The question is not “‘whether the State’s evidence is to be
believed, but whether, if believed, the evidence against a defendant would support a
conviction.’”
Id., quoting
Thompkins at 390.
To meet its burden of production, the State was required to present
sufficient evidence to establish that Carson committed the crime of attempted
felonious assault. Felonious assault requires evidence that Carson knowingly
caused serious physical harm to another or to another’s unborn. R.C. 2903.11(A)(1).
With the addition of the attempt statute, the offense requires evidence that Carson,
purposely or knowingly, and when purpose or knowledge is sufficient culpability for
the commission of an offense, i.e., felonious assault, engaged in conduct that, if
successful, would have constituted or resulted in the offense of felonious assault.
R.C. 2923.02(A).
The evidence established that Carson hit C.M. twice and that she
woke up in the hospital. Carson argues that even if you look at the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution and find that he hit C.M. twice, there is no
evidence that he knowingly attempted to cause her serious physical harm. Carson
suggests that even if believed, no reasonable factfinder could believe that he
intended to cause serious physical harm when he hit C.M. However, courts have
recognized that there is an inherent danger of causing serious physical harm when
a person hits someone in the face and/or head. See State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-
3722, ¶ 107 (8th Dist.).
The evidence reflects that C.M. was 5′4″ tall and weighed 150 pounds.
In contrast, Carson was 5′7″ tall and weighed 225 pounds. Carson hit C.M. with
sufficient force that she was knocked unconscious. A single punch to the head poses
a risk of serious physical harm. Jacinto at id. Carson’s focus on whether or not one
or two hits could form the basis of an attempted felonious assault conviction is
misplaced. Carson suggests we must find that when he hit C.M. his intention was to
actually cause serious physical harm. However,
[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)
It is well settled that the State is not required to show that the
defendant knew the specific nature or extent of the injuries that would result from
his actions. State v. Benson, 2018-Ohio-2235, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Luna,
2015-Ohio-3079, ¶ 16 (6th Dist.).
It is not necessary that a defendant be able to foresee the precise
consequence of his or her conduct; only that the consequences be
foreseeable in the sense that what actually transpired was natural and
logical in that it was within the scope of the risk that the defendant
created.
Id., citing State v. Dykas,
2010-Ohio-359, ¶ 28 (8th Dist.).
While it is possible that Carson did not specifically intend to cause
serious physical harm to C.M., there was sufficient evidence presented to establish,
if believed, that he intended to hit her, and did hit her with force and serious physical
harm is a foreseeable consequence from a single hit.
The cases Carson cites in support of his argument are distinguishable.
In State v. Thompson, 2014-Ohio-1056 (8th Dist.), the defendant was charged with
felonious assault but found guilty of attempted felonious assault. Thompson argued
that there was insufficient evidence that he intended to cause serious physical harm
for a conviction of attempted felonious assault. The testimony established that
Thompson hit the child victim once in the head, she was bruised, but no medical
treatment was required and there was no evidence that she would be permanently
incapacitated or disfigured, nor that she underwent substantial pain and suffering
as a result of the injury. Id. at ¶ 35. Here, the evidence established that Carson hit
C.M., she was knocked unconscious and was treated for that period of
unconsciousness and concussion. “Serious physical harm” includes “any physical
harm that involves some permanent incapacity, whether partial or total, or that
involves some temporary substantial incapacity.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(5)(c). A loss of
consciousness qualifies as a temporary, substantial incapacity. In re D.C., 2022-
Ohio-4086, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.).
In State v. McSwain, 2004-Ohio-3292 (8th Dist.), this court reversed
the defendant’s conviction for aggravated robbery finding that the evidence was
insufficient to establish that the defendant caused or attempted to cause serious
physical harm during the crime when he punched the victim once causing swelling
that prevented her from eating for a few days. Id. at ¶ 24. Here, again, the evidence
reflects that Carson’s actions did result in serious physical harm. While one punch
did not result in serious physical harm in McSwain, the hits in this case did result
in serious physical harm.
Finally, at oral argument, Carson relied on State v. Stafford, No.
75739, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 912 (8th Dist. Mar. 9, 2000), in support of his
argument. In that case, the defendant was convicted of attempted felonious assault
after restraining his girlfriend, sitting on her chest, covering her mouth, and closing
her nose. The defendant only stopped when the police kicked in the door after
receiving complaints from a neighbor. Carson argues that this is the type of evidence
necessary to establish attempted felonious assault. We disagree. A charge of
felonious assault or attempted felonious assault requires evidence that the
defendant acted knowingly, i.e., that what actually transpired was within the scope
of results occasioned by the defendant’s actions.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the State presented sufficient
evidence to support the conviction for attempted felonious assault. Accordingly,
the first assignment of error is overruled.
Weight of the Evidence
In the second assignment of error, Carson argues that his convictions
were not supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, Carson
argues that he acted in self-defense, thus his actions were justified, and that, with
respect to the attempted felonious assault charge, he did not attempt to cause
serious physical harm.
Self-Defense
With respect to a claim of self-defense, the Supreme Court has found
that “a defendant charged with an offense involving the use of force has the burden
of producing legally sufficient evidence that the defendant’s use of force was in self-
defense.” State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 25. Generally, self-defense claims
center around credibility. State v. Walker,
2021-Ohio-2037, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), “If
evidence presented at trial tends to support the conclusion ‘that the defendant used
force against another in self-defense or in defense of another, the State must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not use the force in self-defense
or defense of another.’”
Id., quoting State v. Smith,
2020-Ohio-4976, ¶ 49 (1st
Dist.), citing R.C. 2901.05(B)(1).
Self-defense requires evidence that the accused:
(1) Was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray;
(2) That the defendant reasonably believed that he was in imminent
danger of bodily harm;
(3) His only means to protect himself from such danger was by the use
of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
State v. Kilbane, 2019-Ohio-863, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.).
The State may refute a claim of self-defense by negating any one of
the three elements of the self-defense claim. State v. Williams, 2023-Ohio-1903,
¶ 31 (8th Dist.).
In the instant case, there was conflicting evidence about how the
incident started. C.M. and E.J. testified that Carson had tried to flirt with C.M. and
became aggressive when he was rebuffed. Carson in contrast testified that E.J.
approached him unprovoked. Nevertheless, the undisputed testimony was that at
some point a number of people became angry and the source of that anger was
Carson. Jermaine, in particular, testified that when he headed back to Carson, he
saw a mob of 10 to 15 people going after someone, and as he got closer, he realized
that the person was Carson. Tr. 82. Per E.J., several people went after Carson after
he hit her. Based on the foregoing, the trial court could have found that Carson
caused the situation leading up to the affray because he was hostile after being
rejected and refused to leave, that he hit E.J. and did not merely swat or mug E.J.,
given everyone’s reaction.
The trial court’s finding of guilt amounts to a finding that the State
refuted Carson’s claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That finding was
supported by the greater weight of the evidence.
Weight of the Evidence Supporting Attempted Felonious Assault and
Assault
Turning to the offenses of attempted felonious assault and assault, it
was undisputed that Carson hit both C.M. and E.J. In fact, by claiming self-defense,
Carson “‘concedes that he had the purpose to commit the act but asserts that he was
justified in his actions.’” State v. Davis, 2021-Ohio-2311, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.), quoting
State v. Talley,
2006-Ohio-5322, ¶ 45 (8th Dist.). In order to establish the crime of
assault, the State must prove that Carson knowingly caused or attempted to cause
physical harm to E.J. R.C. 2903.13(A). For attempted felonious assault, the State
must prove that Carson purposefully or knowingly engaged in conduct that, if
successful, would constitute or result in felonious assault. R.C. 2923.02(A). One
type of felonious assault occurs when a person knowingly causes serious physical
harm to another. R.C. 2903.11(A)(2).
When a reviewing court examines whether a conviction is against the
manifest weight of the evidence, it, after “reviewing the entire record, weighs the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of the witnesses and
determines whether in resolving 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.” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d, at 387.
Carson minimized his conduct by testifying that he either “swatted”
or “mugged” the victims to stop them from hitting him. Having resolved the issue
of self-defense, the only issue is whether the convictions for attempted felonious
assault and assault were supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. E.J.
testified that Carson became aggressive after C.M. rejected him, eventually yelling
and calling the women “out of their names.” She started asking him to leave and
Carson responded by hitting her in the head and her body “kind of thrust over.”
After he hit her, everybody rushed in towards Carson and there was a lot of
screaming and yelling. Further, bodycam video showed E.J. holding an ice pack to
her head after police arrived. Contrasting E.J.’s testimony and the evidence with
Carson’s, testimony that he only swatted or mugged E.J., the trial court could have
determined that it was more credible that the crowd charged Carson because he hit
E.J., forcefully. Accordingly, the assault conviction was supported by the manifest
weight of the evidence.
With respect to the attempted felonious assault conviction, Carson
argues that the testimony that he hit C.M. twice in succession cannot establish that
he attempted to cause serious physical harm. However, the mens rea for attempt is
the same mens rea for the full offense, i.e., knowingly. R.C. 2923.02(A). This court
has found that
the State is not required to show that the defendant knew the specific
nature or extent of the injuries that would result from the defendant’s
actions. State v. Luna, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-14-1 172, 2015-Ohio-3079,
¶ 16, citing State v. Witt, 6th Dist. Williams No. WM-04-007, 2005-
Ohio-1379, ¶ 27. It is not necessary that a defendant be able to foresee
the precise consequences of his or her conduct; only that the
consequences be foreseeable in the sense that what actually transpired
was natural and logical in that it was within the scope of the risk that
the defendant created. State v. Dykas, 185 Ohio App. 3d 763, 2010-
Ohio-359, 925 N.E.2d 685, ¶ 28 (8th Dist.).
State v. Benson,
2018-Ohio-2235, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.).
C.M. testified that Carson hit her twice and the next thing she knew,
she was waking up in the hospital. Carson argues that he did not intend to cause
serious physical harm, nor could two hits, if you believe C.M., caused serious
physical harm. Rather, Carson argues that C.M. must have had a seizure and was
injured when she fell to the ground. The medical records indicated that C.M. had a
history of seizures, and two lay witnesses, E.J. and a police officer, testified that C.M.
seemed to have a seizure that night. 2 However, the records proved that she was
treated for a closed-head injury and a concussion. Based on her testimony that she
blacked out after Carson hit her, the evidence that Carson hit E.J. more forcefully
than a swat, and the absence of any testimony describing another source for her
injuries, the trial court could have concluded that Carson knocked C.M.
unconscious, which constitutes serious physical harm under R.C. 2901.01(A)(5)(c).
In re D.C., 2022-Ohio-4086, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.).
Accordingly, we find that Carson’s convictions were supported by the
weight of the evidence. Carson’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment
into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
_____________
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, PRESIDING JUDGE
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR
2 Although E.J. was a nurse at the time she testified, she had not completed her
training at the time the incident occurred. She had worked as a home health aide but her
training was not addressed.
