[Cite as State v. Parr, 2014-Ohio-2169.]
COURT OF APPEALS
COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2013CA0017
JASON PARR
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Coshocton Municipal
Court, Case No. CRB 1300270
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 19, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
Assistant Law Director JEFFREY G. KELLOGG
CHRISTIE M. L. THORNSLEY Assistant Public Defender, Coshocton Cty.
760 Chestnut Street 239 North Fourth Street
Coshocton, OH 43812 Coshocton, OH 43812
Coshocton County, Case No. 2013CA0017 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Jason Parr appeals his conviction entered by the
Coshocton Municipal Court on one count of aggravated menacing, in violation of R.C.
2903.1(A). Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On May 6, 2013, Appellant's father, Mark Parr, advised the Coshocton
County Sheriff's Office Appellant had made threats to Rhonda Kirchner, Mark Parr's
girlfriend. Specifically, Appellant threatened to knock Kirchner down and "beat her skull
in." Ms. Kirchner completed a written statement accounting for Appellant's statements,
indicating Appellant called her at work stating he had just gotten out of jail for beating up
someone and he would do the same to her. Ms. Kirchner stated she was afraid to go
home and felt safer at work. She also stated she was afraid of Appellant when he did
not take his medication. Mark Parr indicated to the investigating officers Appellant was
not currently on his medication.
{¶3} On June 26, 2013, the matter proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court
found Appellant guilty of the charge. The trial court proceeded to sentence Appellant to
180 days in the Coshocton County Jail.
{¶4} Appellant appeals, assigning as error:
{¶5} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BECAUSE THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE APPELLANT'S CONVICTION."
{¶6} Appellant maintains his conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence. In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the
Coshocton County, Case No. 2013CA0017 3
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, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387,
1997–Ohio–52, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485
N.E.2d 717 (1983).
{¶7} Appellant was convicted of aggravated menacing, in violation of R.C.
2903.21(A), which reads,
{¶8} "(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender
will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other
person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family."
{¶9} Appellant submits his conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence as he testified at trial he did not threaten Ms. Kirchner, and he would never
threaten a woman. He further testified why Kirchner would lie and falsely claim
Appellant threatened her.
{¶10} Only two witnesses testified at trial, Appellant and the alleged victim,
Kirchner. They testified in direct opposition to one another.
{¶11} As an appellate court, we are not fact finders; we neither weigh the
evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is
relevant, competent and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base his or
her judgment. Cross Truck v. Jeffries, 5th Dist. No. CA–5758, 1982 WL 2911 (Feb. 10,
1982). Accordingly, judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going
Coshocton County, Case No. 2013CA0017 4
to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed as being against the
manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction, 54 Ohio St.2d
279, 376 N.E.2d 578(1978). The Ohio Supreme Court has emphasized: “ ‘[I]n
determining whether the judgment below is manifestly against the weight of the
evidence, every reasonable intendment and every reasonable presumption must be
made in favor of the judgment and the finding of facts. * * *.' " Eastley v. Volkman, 132
Ohio St.3d 328, 334, 972 N.E.2d 517, 2012–Ohio–2179, quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc.
v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984), fn. 3, quoting 5 Ohio
Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review, Section 603, at 191–192 (1978). Furthermore, it is
well established that the trial court is in the best position to determine the credibility of
witnesses. See, e.g., In re Brown, 9th Dist. No. 21004, 2002–Ohio–3405, ¶ 9, citing
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St .2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212(1967).
{¶12} The trial court was in the best position to weigh the truthfulness and
credibility of the two witnesses. We do not find Appellant's conviction is against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶13} Appellant's conviction on one count of aggravated menacing in the
Coshocton Municipal Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Delaney, J. concur
State v. Parr
Combined Opinion