[Cite as State v. Holbrook, 2013-Ohio-1870.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
: Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs- :
:
JASON HOLBROOK : Case No. 2012CA00180
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 2012CR0852
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 6, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellee
JOHN D. FERRERO MATTHEW A. PETIT
Prosecuting Attorney 116 Cleveland Avenue, NW
Suite 808
By: RENEE M. WATSON Canton, OH 44702
110 Central Plaza South
Suite 510
Canton, OH 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00180 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} On July 10, 2012, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Jason
Holbrook, on one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25. Said charge
arose from an incident involving appellant's girlfriend, Kayla Ecklund. Appellant had
slapped Ms. Ecklund across the face.
{¶2} A jury trial commenced on August 20, 2012. The jury found appellant
guilty. By judgment entry filed September 17, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant
to twelve months in prison.
{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
I
{¶4} "THE APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR ONE COUNT OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2919.25 WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE."
I
{¶5} Appellant claims his conviction for domestic violence was against the
manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶6} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State
v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991). "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." Jenks at
paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). On
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00180 3
review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire record, weigh the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and
determine "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. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983), 175. See also, State
v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52. The granting of a new trial "should be
exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the
conviction." Martin at 175.
{¶7} Appellant was convicted of domestic violence in violation of R.C.
2919.25(A) which states, "[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause
physical harm to a family or household member." "Physical harm" is defined in R.C.
2901.01(A)(3) as, "any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its
gravity or duration."
{¶8} Appellant argues because the responding officers and his grandmother,
Betty Knight, did not testify to any visible injury, swelling, or redness on the victim’s
face, the evidence is insufficient to establish the element of physical harm.
{¶9} The victim, Kayla Ecklund, was 5'2" tall, 110 pounds, nineteen years old,
and seven months pregnant at the time of the incident. T. at 78, 92. Appellant was
thirty-eight years old at the time. T. at 137. Ms. Ecklund testified she and appellant
entered into an argument. She attempted to call her mother and appellant slapped her.
T. at 91, 99. She explained, "Jason had been drinking, and we had gotten in an
argument; and I went to go call my mom to tell her to come pick me up. He told me to
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00180 4
get away from the phone, and I wouldn't. So he had hit me across the face." Id. She
testified her face was red and swollen. T. at 92, 100.
{¶10} Neither of the responding officers observed any physical marks on Ms.
Ecklund, except Stark County Sheriff's Sergeant Terry Curry, who observed a slight
injury. T. at 110-111. Ms. Ecklund was upset and distraught according to the officers.
T. at 78, 109.
{¶11} Ms. Knight told the officers at the scene that appellant had slapped Ms.
Ecklund across the face, but at trial, claimed not to have witnessed the slap or was too
confused to recall the entire incident because of her low blood sugar. T. at 136-138.
Ms. Knight appeared to blame Ms. Ecklund for giving appellant some beer that
aggravated his mental illness. T. at 133-134.
{¶12} We note the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182 (1990).
The trier of fact "has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and credibility
of each witness, something that does not translate well on the written page." Davis v.
Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 1997-Ohio-260.
{¶13} Upon review, we find sufficient evidence of an event that meets the
definition of "physical harm," a slapping, and no manifest miscarriage of justice.
{¶14} The sole assignment of error is denied.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00180 5
{¶15} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio is
hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur.
_s / Sheila G. Farmer______________
_s/ William B. Hoffman_____________
_s / John W. Wise_________________
JUDGES
SGF/sg 426
[Cite as State v. Holbrook, 2013-Ohio-1870.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
JASON HOLBROOK :
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 2012CA00180
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio is affirmed. Costs to
appellant.
s / Sheila G. Farmer______________
_s/ William B. Hoffman_____________
_s / John W. Wise_________________
JUDGES
State v. Holbrook
Combined Opinion