[Cite as State v. Jordan, 2012-Ohio-1905.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2011 CA 00238
JOSEPH JORDAN
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Canton Municipal
Court, Case No. 2011 CRB 2471
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 30, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOSEPH MARTUCCIO KIMBERLY L. STOUT
CANTON LAW DIRECTOR ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
TYRONE D. HAURITZ 200 West Tuscarawas Street
CITY PROSECUTOR Canton, Ohio 44702
TASHA FORCHIONE
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR
218 Cleveland Avenue, SW
Post Office Box 24218
Canton, Ohio 44701-4218
Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00238 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant Joseph A. Jordan appeals his sentence and conviction entered
in the Canton Municipal Court on one count of domestic violence.
{¶2} Appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶3} Appellant Joseph A. Jordan lives with Jessica Shelton. He is also the
father of three of her four children. (T. at 63).
{¶4} On May 5, 2011, Appellant and Ms. Shelton, who was approximately eight
months pregnant and had been ordered to restrictive bed rest by her treating physician,
got into an argument because she had not completed washing the dishes. (T. at 64,
66).
{¶5} Ms. Shelton telephoned her father, James Shelton, and told him about the
argument. (T. at 67, 83-84). Mr. Shelton, in turn, contacted the Canton Police
Department and told the dispatcher “[f]rom what I understand, he hit her, and she is
pregnant….She’s pregnant…He shouldn’t hit her anyway, and he definitely can’t hit her
when she is pregnant.” (T. at 85, 93).
{¶6} Canton Police Officers Shackle and Taylor were dispatched to the
residence. (T. at 97, 105-106). During their interview with Ms. Shelton, she informed
the officers that she and Appellant had argued and that “the argument turned physical,
and her boyfriend struck her in the left hip and buttocks area with his hands two to three
times.” Id. Ms. Shelton further informed the officers that this was not the first time that
Appellant had been violent with her, and that he had hit her on previous occasions. (T.
at 98, 107).
Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00238 3
{¶7} Appellant was placed under arrest and removed from the residence. Id.
{¶8} A Complainant Statement was prepared for Ms. Shelton, which she
signed, stating “I, Jessica Shelton, would like to make the following statements, on 5-5-
11 at 503 11th St. NW, Joseph Alvin Jordan, did knowingly cause or attempt to cause
harm to a family or household member, Jessica Addie Shelton.” (T. at 111).
{¶9} On July 20, 2011, Defendant-Appellant was charged with one count of
domestic violence, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. §2919.25(A).
The State alleged that Defendant-Appellant had struck his live-in pregnant girlfriend in
the hip area two to three times during a verbal argument about housework.
{¶10} At his arraignment on July 20, 2011, Defendant-Appellant entered a plea
of Not Guilty.
{¶11} A trial by jury was held on October 7, 2011.
{¶12} At the trial in this matter, the State presented testimony from Jessica
Shelton, James Shelton, and Officers Shackle and Officer Taylor.
{¶13} Ms. Shelton testified that she did not read the Complainant Statement or
NIBRS report. (T. at 72, 74). She further testified that she signed both documents with the
understanding that Appellant would be released from the Stark County Jail the following
day. (T. at. 71, 78). Ms. Shelton went on to tell the jury of her close bond with Appellant,
that she still loved him, that she wanted to continue raising children with him, and that
she was concerned about the possible consequences of a conviction for Domestic
Violence. (T. at. 73, 80).
Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00238 4
{¶14} Officer Shackle and Officer Taylor testified that during the course of the
investigation Ms. Shelton did not deny the allegation that Appellant struck her multiple times,
nor did she ask the police not to arrest Appellant. (T. at 99, 111).
{¶15} Appellant testified in his own defense and denied striking Ms. Shelton. He
also testified that he has resided with James Shelton since the incident. (T. at 127).
{¶16} At the conclusion of the trial following deliberations, the jury found
Defendant-Appellant guilty as charged.
{¶17} The trial court sentenced Defendant-Appellant to serve 68 days in the
Stark County Jail with 7 days credit. Defendant-Appellant was taken into custody
immediately. The trial court also ordered Defendant-Appellant to sign up and comply
with the Summit Psychological program for anger management counseling and 2 years
of probation.
{¶18} Appellant now appeals, assigning the following errors for review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶19} “I. THE APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS
UNSUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
I.
{¶20} In his sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues that his conviction is
against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
{¶21} Specifically, Appellant argues that because Jessica Shelton recanted her
original statement to the police and her father, James Shelton, recanted his statement
Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00238 5
to the 911 dispatcher, that his conviction is against the manifest weight and sufficiency
of the evidence.
{¶22} 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 (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492. “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
(1979), 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560.
{¶23} On 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 (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175,
485 N.E.2d 717. See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541,
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, 485
N.E.2d 717.
{¶24} 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 (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 182,
552 N.E.2d 180, certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 228, 112 L.Ed.2d
183. The trier of fact “has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and
Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00238 6
credibility of each witness, something that does not translate well on the written page.”
Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159, 1997-Ohio-260.
{¶25} Appellant was convicted of one count of Domestic Violence, in violation of
R.C. §2919.25(A) which provides:
{¶26} “No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a
family or household member.”
{¶27} In the case sub judice, the State presented evidence that Shelton made a
statement to police that Appellant was angry at her over housework, and that they
argued and that he struck her several times. The State presented the testimony of both
responding officers and the 911 audio tape made by Jessica Shelton’s father, James
Shelton.
{¶28} From the evidence presented concerning the circumstances surrounding
the encounter between Appellant and Shelton, a rational trier of fact could find that
Appellant knowingly attempted to cause physical harm to Shelton.
{¶29} In this case, the jury chose to believe the State’s evidence. A defendant is
not entitled to a reversal on manifest weight grounds merely because inconsistent
evidence was presented at trial. State v. Raver, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-604, 2003-Ohio-
958, ¶ 21. Neither is a conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence because
the trier of fact believed the state's version of events over the appellant's version. State
v. Gale, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-708, 2006-Ohio-1523, ¶ 19; State v. Williams, 10th Dist.
No. 08AP719, 2009-Ohio-3237, ¶ 17. The trier of fact is free to believe or disbelieve all
or any of the testimony. State v. Jackson (Mar. 19, 2002), 10th Dist. No. 01AP-973;
State v. Sheppard (Oct. 12, 2001), 1st Dist. No. C-000553. The trier of fact is in the best
Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00238 7
position to take into account inconsistencies, along with the witnesses' manner and
demeanor, and determine whether the witnesses' testimony is credible. State v.
Williams, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-35, 2002-Ohio-4503, ¶ 58; State v. Clarke (Sept. 25,
2001), 10th Dist. No. 01AP-194. Consequently, an appellate court must ordinarily give
great deference to the fact finder's determination of the witnesses' credibility. State v.
Covington, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-245, 2002-Ohio-7037, ¶ 28; State v. Hairston, 10th Dist.
No. 01AP-1393, 2002-Ohio-4491, ¶ 74.
{¶30} Based on the evidence presented, we find sufficient credible evidence to
support the jury's guilty verdicts and cannot say that the jury clearly lost its way and
created a manifest miscarriage of justice when it convicted Appellant.
{¶31} Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.
{¶32} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Canton Municipal Court,
Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Delaney, P. J., and
Gwin, J., concur.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES
JWW/d 0413
Stark County, Case No. 2011 CA 00238 8
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
JOSEPH JORDAN :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 2011 CA 00238
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Canton Municipal Court, Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to Appellant.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES