State v. Channels

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State v. Channels, 2003-Ohio-3830.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee vs. : : C.A. CASE NO. 19530 T.C. CASE NO. 02CRB7293 WILMA J. CHANNELS : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court) Defendant-Appellant : . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 18th day of July, 2003. . . . . . . . . . Patrick J. Bonfield, Acting Director of Law; Deirdre Logan, Chief Prosecutor, Addie J. King, Asst. City Prosecutor, 335 W. Third Street, Rm. 372, Dayton, Ohio 45402, Atty. Reg. No. 0073959 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee James R. Greene, III, 120 West Second Street, Liberty Tower Suite 900, Dayton, Ohio 45402, Atty. Reg. No. 0034267 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant . . . . . . . . . GRADY, J. {¶1} Defendant, Wilma Channels, appeals from her conviction and sentence for assault. {¶2} arrived On June 18, 2002, at about 10:20 p.m., Shawn Channels at the apartment of Lisa girlfriend, to retrieve his belongings. Moorehead, his former An argument ensued, and Moorehead began to throw Channels clothing and other personal property Several out through people the outside bedroom helped window Channels and pick the up front his door. clothes. Among them daughter, were his Jasmine sister, Brown, Defendant, Channels Wilma current 2 Channels, girlfriend, her Dawn Woodrick, and others. {¶3} onto According to Ms. Moorehead, when she stepped outside her porch, Wilma Channels grabbed her around the neck and threw her off of the porch. As Moorehead lay on her back on the ground, both Defendant and her daughter jumped her, hitting and kicking Moorehead. up the fight. Security guards eventually arrived and broke Moorehead sustained bruises and scratches to her back, left upper thigh, neck, and elbow. Moorehead testified that she did not threaten, point a gun, or throw a punch at anyone prior to being attacked by Defendant and her daughter. {¶4} Nathan Lasane, a friend of both Ms. Moorehead and Mr. Channels, was visiting a friend who also lives on Lakebend Drive. When Mr. Lasane heard yelling, he went outside and saw Defendant and Ms. Moorehead fighting. on her back. Moorehead was on the ground, lying Defendant and another female were standing over Moorehead, hitting her. Moorehead was fighting back. Defendant was subsequently charged in Dayton Municipal Court with one count of Assault, R.C. 2903.13(A). {¶5} Brown, At her trial, brother Defendant Shawn Woodrick as witnesses. presented Channels, and her his daughter Jasmine girlfriend Dawn These witnesses testified that Moorehead pulled out a gun and pointed it at Shawn Channels, who then took the gun away and handed it to some unknown bystander. and Jasmine Brown then began to fight, punching Moorehead each other. Defendant became involved in an effort to break up the fight, but 3 she did not punch or kick Moorehead. {¶6} court. Defendant was found guilty following a trial to the The court sentenced Defendant to ninety days, suspended, placed Defendant on two years probation, and imposed a fine of two hundred dollars plus costs. {¶7} Defendant has timely appealed to this court from her conviction and sentence. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶8} JURY IF THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD WOULD NOT CONVINCE A REASONABLE BELIEVED AND, THEREFORE, THE STANDARD OF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WAS NOT MET. {¶9} Defendant s assignment of error, as phrased, implicates the test for sufficiency of the evidence. Her argument in the body of her brief, however, asserts that her version of the events is more credible than Ms. Moorehead s version - a weight of the evidence argument. We shall address both theories. {¶10} Defendant was found guilty of violating R.C. 2903.13(A) which provides: {¶11} No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another s unborn. {¶12} A sufficiency of the evidence argument challenges whether the State has presented adequate evidence on each element of the offense to allow the case to go to the jury or sustain the verdict as a matter of law. 380, 1997-Ohio-52. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d The proper test to apply to such an inquiry is the one set forth in paragraph two of the syllabus of State v. 4 Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259: {¶13} An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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. {¶14} Ms. Moorehead s testimony alone, if believed, is sufficient to establish each and every element of assault and convince the reasonable average doubt. mind of Defendant s Additionally, Mr. guilt beyond Lasane s a testimony corroborates Ms. Moorehead s claim that Defendant assaulted her. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of facts could find all of the essential elements of assault proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence. {¶15} A weight of the evidence argument challenges the believability of the evidence; which of the competing inferences suggested by the evidence is more believable or persuasive. State v. Hufnagle (Sept. 6, 1996), Montgomery App. No. 15563, unreported. The proper test to apply to that inquiry is the one set forth in State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175: {¶16} [t]he court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility 5 of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. {¶17} Defendant argues that her version of the events is simply more credible than Ms. Moorehead s version. Defendant guilty, however, the trial court In finding commented that Defendant s witnesses were not credible. {¶18} In resolving conflicts in the evidence the trier of facts must determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. In that regard this court stated in State v. Lawson (August 22, 1997), Montgomery App. No. 16288: {¶19} [b]ecause the factfinder . . . has the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, the cautious exercise of the discretionary power of a court of appeals to find that a judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence requires that substantial deference be determinations of credibility. extended to the factfinder s The decision whether, and to what extent, to credit the testimony of particular witnesses is within the peculiar competence of the factfinder, who has seen and heard the witness. Id., at p. 4. {¶20} This court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of facts on the issue of witness credibility unless it is patently apparent that the trier of facts lost its way in arriving at its verdict. State v. Bradley (October 24, 1997), Champaign App. No. 97-CA-03. 6 {¶21} The trial court acted well within its authority in choosing to believe Ms. Moorehead over Defendant s witnesses. In reviewing this record as a whole, we cannot say that the evidence weighs heavily against a conviction, that the trial court lost its way, or that a manifest miscarriage of justice has occurred. Defendant s conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶22} The assignment of error is overruled. the trial court will be affirmed. FAIN, P.J. and BROGAN, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Addie J. King, Esq. James R. Greene, III, Esq. Hon. Larry W. Moore The judgment of

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.