[Cite as State v. Thompkins, 2014-Ohio-1688.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NO. CA2013-07-119
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
OPINION
: 4/21/2014
- vs -
:
DYLAN S. THOMPKINS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. 13CRB01958-A
Geoffrey A. Modderman, Hamilton City Prosecutor, 345 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011,
for plaintiff-appellee
Ched Peck, 304 North Second Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellant
M. POWELL, J.
1
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Dylan Tompkins, appeals from his conviction in the
Hamilton Municipal Court of one count of domestic violence. For the reasons detailed below,
we affirm.
1. As a point of clarification, we note appellant's last name has been spelled two different ways: Tompkins and
Thompkins. For purposes of consistency, we choose to use "Tompkins," the spelling used by appellant in his
appellate brief.
Butler CA2013-07-119
{¶ 2} On June 9, 2013, Lauren Sibert sustained injuries following an alleged physical
altercation with appellant at her Butler County residence located in Hamilton, Ohio. Although
appellant and Sibert were not living in the same household nor involved in a romantic
relationship at the time of the incident, they were the natural parents of a one-year-old child.
Appellant was subsequently charged with domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a
first-degree misdemeanor. Following a bench trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced to
180 days in jail with 178 days suspended, ordered to pay a fine of $116, and placed on
supervised community control for two years. Appellant now appeals his conviction, raising a
single assignment of error for review:
{¶ 3} MR. TOMPKINS' CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 4} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues his conviction is against the
manifest weight of the evidence. This argument lacks merit.
{¶ 5} A manifest weight challenge examines the inclination of the greater amount of
credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997); State v. Wolf, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2012-12-263, 2013-Ohio-5271, ¶ 8. In determining whether a conviction is against the
manifest weight of the evidence, the court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence
and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of 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.
State v. Hibbard, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2001-12-276, CA2001-12-286, 2003-Ohio-707, ¶
10. "This discretionary power should be exercised only in the exceptional case where the
evidence weighs heavily against conviction." State v. Coldiron, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos.
CA2003-09-078, CA2003-09-079, 2004-Ohio-5651, ¶ 24; State v. Gray, 12th Dist. Butler No.
-2-
Butler CA2013-07-119
CA2011-09-176, 2012-Ohio-4769, ¶ 78.
{¶ 6} The crime of domestic violence is defined in R.C. 2919.25(A) and provides "[n]o
person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household
member." State v. Smith, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2011-01-002, 2011-Ohio-2346, ¶ 13;
State v Short, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-12-322, 2011-Ohio-5744, ¶ 28. The term "family
or household member" includes "[t]he natural parent of any child of whom the offender is the
other natural parent or is the putative other natural parent." R.C. 2919.25(F)(1)(b); Smith at ¶
13.
{¶ 7} In the present case, the state presented the testimony of the victim, Sibert, as
well as the investigating police officer, Officer David Anglin. Sibert testified that appellant is
the father of her one-year-old child. According to Sibert, on June 9, 2013 appellant came to
her residence between 2:30 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., pounded on the front door, and began
yelling. When she answered the door, Sibert testified that appellant grabbed her by the
throat, began choking her, and threw her to the ground. Sibert also testified that she sought
medical treatment for the injuries received in connection with that altercation.
{¶ 8} Next, the state presented the testimony of Officer Anglin, the investigating
police officer. Officer Anglin testified that when he arrived at the scene, Sibert was very
upset, crying, and complaining of pain in her leg. Officer Anglin also testified that he
interviewed appellant during the course of his investigation. According to Officer Anglin,
appellant admitted that he pushed Sibert:
Q. When you said, "his side of the story," what did [appellant]
say beyond what you've already testified?
[Appellant] [s]aid he came in [to Sibert's residence]. [Appellant
and Sibert] got in an argument. He started to leave and she
chased him down the street and uh--he had to push her off of
him.
{¶ 9} Following the state's presentation of evidence, the defense presented the
-3-
Butler CA2013-07-119
testimony of appellant's mother, Tracy Hollingsworth, and step-father, David Hollingsworth.
The Hollingsworths both testified that Sibert called their house in the middle of the night and
stated that she had an altercation with appellant and complained of physical injuries. As a
result, the Hollingsworths went to Sibert's house located a few blocks away. While at Sibert's
house, Tracy Hollingsworth testified that Sibert gave conflicting accounts of the altercation.
Furthermore, the Hollingsworths also testified that the Sibert's residence did not show any
signs of recent struggle. For example, the Hollingsworths testified that the house seemed
orderly and Sibert's one-year-old child was calm and not crying.
{¶ 10} Finally, the trial court also heard appellant testify in his own defense. Appellant
admitted to going to Sibert's house on June 9, 2013 at around 2:30 a.m. Appellant testified
that he had a conversation with Sibert that lasted approximately 15-20 minutes. Appellant
further testified that, when he went to leave, Sibert followed him out of the house and started
yelling. According to appellant, Sibert then grabbed him and started "swinging." As a result,
appellant testified that he stuck his hand out in an attempt to keep Sibert away, which caused
her to trip and fall over a rock.
{¶ 11} In light of the evidence presented, the trial court did not clearly lose its way in
concluding that appellant was guilty of domestic violence. This case came down to the
credibility of the witnesses. The state presented the testimony of Sibert who clearly identified
appellant and testified that appellant had grabbed her by the throat, choked her, and threw
her to the ground. Sibert further identified appellant as the father of her one-year-old child.
See R.C. 2919.25(F)(1)(b); Smith, 2011-Ohio-2346 at ¶ 13-14. Although appellant offered
conflicting evidence regarding the account, i.e., Sibert tripped, the trial court, as trier of fact,
was in the best position to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. Following the presentation
of all evidence, the trial court clearly found the state's testimony to be more credible. As
such, we find the trial court's verdict was supported by the weight of the evidence.
-4-
Butler CA2013-07-119
Accordingly, appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 12} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
-5-