Login | April 26, 2024
Appellate court rules prior convictions allowable in domestic violence case
ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 16, 2014
A domestic violence conviction handed down in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas was upheld by the 9th District Court of Appeals recently when a three-judge reviewing panel found that the lower court properly allowed evidence of the defendant’s four prior domestic violence convictions.
Appellant Daryl Inman argued that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the evidence because it constituted other-acts evidence.
He also argued that the state only needed to prove two convictions to uphold the third-degree level of his offense.
According to case summary, Inman and his girlfriend, who is the mother of his two children, were at a bar last spring when an altercation ensued.
Inman struck his girlfriend in the face with his hand causing her to fall and hit her head on a pool table.
The victim suffered a closed-head injury, facial contusions and a cervical strain.
She testified at trial that she and Inman had another physical altercation at their home the following day.
The Medina County Grand Jury indicted Inman on two counts of third-degree domestic violence due to the fact that he had two or more prior convictions for the same offense.
He was convicted on the first count but acquitted of the second and ultimately sentenced to 36 months in prison.
The court of appeals did not side with him after reviewing his claim that the state should not have presented evidence of all of his prior convictions.
“The trial court possesses broad discretion in determining the admission of evidence,” wrote Presiding Judge Jennifer Hensal on behalf of the court of appeals.
In its review of the trial transcripts, the appellate panel noted that Inman objected to the admissibility of any more than two convictions as such evidence would be more prejudicial than probative.
He offered to stipulate to the jury receiving information about only two of them.
The state rejected Inman’s offer and, eventually, the parties entered into a stipulation that the jury would receive evidence of all four prior convictions but not the corresponding judgment entries.
Still, Inman argued that the prosecution used the four convictions to prove his character rather than as an element of the charged offense.
The court of appeals pointed out that the jury received a limiting instruction on the matter: It was told to consider evidence of Inman’s prior convictions only to prove an element of the offenses rather than to prove his character and that he acted in conformity therewith.
The appellate panel presumed that the jury followed the instructions given to it by the trial court.
“Because the state was not required to accept Mr. Inman’s proposed stipulation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the state to introduce evidence of his four prior convictions,” wrote Judge Hensal.
Inman went on to argue that the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent since he was found guilty on count one along with the two or more prior convictions but, on count two, the court found him not guilty of domestic violence and found that he did not have prior convictions.
Because those verdicts were inconsistent, Inman argued that his offense should not have been raised to the level of a third-degree felony.
The trial court had ruled that the evidence on each count was different and that inconsistent verdicts do not require a reversal based on insufficient evidence. The court of appeals agreed.
“The Ohio Supreme Court has held that the several counts of an indictment containing more than one count are not interdependent and an inconsistency in a verdict does not arise out of inconsistent responses to different counts but only arises out of inconsistent responses to the same count,” wrote Judge Hensal.
Because there were two distinct counts, the verdicts were not inconsistent, the court of appeals held.
Inman also argued that the trial court improperly imposed a maximum sentence but he failed to include his presentence investigation report with his appellate brief.
With an incomplete record, the appellate panel was unable to rule on the matter and presumed that the sentence was valid.
The judgment of the Medina County court was affirmed with judges Beth Whitmore and Carla Moore concurring.
The case is cited State v. Inman, 2014-Ohio-3538.