 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davidson9/14/2001
to do at any time."
Davidson testified that, when she had passed Robinson on the evening of February 18, he had invited her to "have a couple of beers" in his apartment. Once inside, they drank beer and smoked marijuana. But when she attempted to leave, Robinson blocked the doorway so that she could not get out and told her that "she wasn't going nowhere." She shoved him, and he seized her by the hair, started punching her, and then pulled her into the kitchen, where he "knee d in face," causing her nose to swell immediately. At that point, Davidson stated, she seized a knife, "cut him once and [when] he didn't let me go cut him again." Then, she "freaked out," fled from the scene, and went to the house of a female friend, but she refused to report the incident to police or to receive medical attention.
According to Officer Neeley's testimony, fresh blood was found throughout Robinson's apartment. Robinson was "highly excited * * * upset * * * and panicky," and he stated, in response to a direct inquiry, that Davidson was the person who had wounded him.
Some ten days later, Neeley came into contact with Davidson at the Hamilton County Justice Center, where she had been taken by another officer from Neeley's district who had arrested Davidson on the warrant issued on February 19 for the assault on Robinson. Neeley testified that, after the arresting officer had assured him that Davidson had received "the advice of rights," he asked her, "Betty Jo , why did you do it, why did you stab him?" Davidson responded, "After what he did to me, he deserved it." At that time, Neeley testified, she did not tell him that a "physical altercation" had preceded the assault, nor could he see bruises or other injuries on Davidson's person.
When she testified at trial, Davidson said that, by the time of her arrest and the encounter with Neeley, she had had "plenty of time to heal," although she had received no medical treatment after the February 18 incident. Her statement to Neeley that Robinson had "deserved it" referred to Robinson's assault upon her in 1997, when, according to her, Robinson had almost killed her.
It is manifest from the record that the salient issue in this case is whether, when she stabbed and cut Robinson, Davidson was acting in self-defense. We are convinced that the trial court did not err in overruling Davidson's Crim.R. 29 motions for acquittal, made after the prosecution had rested its case-in-chief and after all the evidence had been adduced. The syllabus of State v. Eley (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 169, 383 N.E.2d 132 is as follows:
A reviewing court will not reverse a jury verdict when there is substantial evidence upon which a jury could reasonably conclude that all elements of an offense have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The tenor of the syllabus is found in the body of Justice Celebrezze's opinion:
n considering an assignment of error in a criminal case which attacks the sufficiency of evidence, a certain perspective is required. * * * Our review is * * * confined to a determination of whether there was substantial evidence. Id. at 172, 383 N.E.2d at 134 (citations omitted).
Without question, the evidence in this case was substantial and, if unrebutted or not otherwise denigrated, was sufficient to prove all elements of the assault charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The first assignment is, therefore, overruled upon the authority of Eley and the host of cases that have uniformly applied its rule.
It is a given that on the trial of a case, either civil or criminal, the weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the tri
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|