[Cite as State v. Bryant, 2016-Ohio-7336.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio/City of Toledo Court of Appeals No. L-15-1167
L-15-1168
Appellee
Trial Court No. CRB-14-17926
v. CRB-14-17413
Dionca M. Bryant DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 14, 2016
*****
David Toska, City of Toledo Chief Prosecutor, and
Henry Schaefer, Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.
Frank J. Simmons, II, for appellant.
*****
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant, Dionca Bryant, appeals the judgments
of the Toledo Municipal Court, following a bench trial, convicting her of one count of
domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree, in
case No. CRB-14-17413, and one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C.
2919.25(C), a misdemeanor of the fourth degree, in case No. CRB-14-17926. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} The facts from the bench trial1 reveal that the first count of domestic
violence stems from an incident on October 25, 2014, wherein appellant got into an
argument with the victim, who is the father of appellant’s child. The victim and another
witness who was there at the time, R.B., testified that appellant picked up a rock or brick
and threw it at the victim’s face, striking him below the eye. Pictures of the damage to
the victim’s face were entered into evidence. Appellant, as well as her mother, who was
watching the events through the window of the house, testified that there was a
conversation between appellant and the victim, but that appellant did not yell at the
victim, and did not throw a rock at the victim.
{¶ 3} The second count of domestic violence stemmed from an incident on
November 5, 2014, where appellant went to the car dealership where the victim worked
and threatened him.
{¶ 4} Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court found appellant guilty
of the two charges of domestic violence.2 The trial court sentenced appellant to
1
No transcript of the bench trial was available. Thus, in accordance with App.R. 9(C),
the facts are taken from the parties’ affidavits, which the trial court settled and approved.
2
Appellant was also charged with and found guilty of one count of assault in case No.
CRB-14-17413. However, that count merged with the count of domestic violence for
purposes of sentencing.
2.
suspended sentences of 180 days in case No. CRB-14-17413, and 30 days in case No.
CRB-14-17926.
{¶ 5} Appellant has timely appealed her judgments of conviction, asserting one
assignment of error for our review:
1. The trial court abused its discretion by allowing testimony into
evidence of the defendant’s character in the form of prior bad acts.
Analysis
{¶ 6} Evid.R. 404(B) provides that “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is
not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity
therewith.” In his brief, appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing the victim
and appellant’s mother to testify regarding prior times that appellant had attacked the
victim. Appellant also raises the state’s failure to provide reasonable notice of its intent
to use the prior-bad-acts evidence. The state, in its response, argues that the prior-bad-
acts testimony was elicited to show that the victim was reasonably fearful of imminent
physical harm based on the victim’s threats at his workplace. Additionally, the state
argues that even if admitting the statements was error, such error was harmless because
there was overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt.
{¶ 7} “The admission of [prior-bad-acts] evidence lies within the broad discretion
of the trial court, and a reviewing court should not disturb evidentiary decisions in the
absence of an abuse of discretion that has created material prejudice.” State v. Diar, 120
Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 66. In this case, we conclude that
3.
appellant has failed to establish that the admission of the statements caused material
prejudice.
{¶ 8} In reaching our conclusion, we are mindful of “the usual presumption that in
a bench trial in a criminal case the court considered only the relevant, material, and
competent evidence in arriving at its judgment unless it affirmatively appears to the
contrary.” State v. Arnold, --- Ohio St.3d ---, 2016-Ohio-1595, --- N.E.3d ---, ¶ 39,
quoting State v. White, 15 Ohio St.2d 146, 151, 239 N.E.2d 65 (1968). Here, appellant’s
convictions are amply supported by the testimony of the victim and R.B., which is
corroborated by the evidence of physical injury to the victim’s face. Further, it does not
affirmatively appear that the trial court based its finding of guilt on appellant’s history of
violence towards the victim. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not commit
reversible error in admitting the statements regarding appellant’s prior bad acts.
{¶ 9} Accordingly, appellant’s assignment of error is not well-taken.
Conclusion
{¶ 10} For the foregoing reasons, we find that substantial justice has been done the
party complaining, and the judgments of the Toledo Municipal Court are affirmed.
Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
4.
L-15-1167 and L-15-1168
State v. Bryant
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J.
_______________________________
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.
5.