List all the facts relevant to deciding whether Myah Batie was the initial aggressor.
On March 11, 2014, a jury convicted Myah Evans Batie of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) with a prior conviction specification. The charge arose out of a physical altercation between Batie and her husband, where the husband called 911 for assistance. Batie appealed. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed.
[On direct examination, Officer Todd Simpson testified as follows at Myah Evans Batie’s trial:] Q. And when you respond to a domestic violence call, is it your duty to determine who is the primary physical aggressor? A. Yes, it is. Copyright 2017 Ccngagc Learning. Alt Rights Reserved . May not be copied, scanned. or duplicated. in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the cBook and/or eChapter(s) Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Leaming reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it Q. Based on your conversation in speaking with the victim … outside, in speaking with the defendant inside, your observations, what did you conclude? A. The observations of the evidence proved that Miss BatieDefense Counsel: Objection. The Court: Overruled. A. Miss Evans started the disturbance, continued and assaulted and injured her husband. Q. And what was your basis for coming to that conclusion? A. His bruising obviously on his face, the scratches, bite marks on his arm, and I think his leg.
A claim of self-defense requires the defendant prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ( 1) she “was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray” ; (2) that she “had a bona fide belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that her only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force;” and (3) “that she did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid danger.”
The first prong of the test asks, in essence, whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. While the primary physical aggressor inquiry is not necessarily the same as whether a person was the initial aggressor, the primary aggressor question can nonetheless undermine a claim of self-defense. This is especially true when an officer’s testimony goes beyond the primary aggressor inquiry and treads into the realm of who initiated the altercation. That is exactly what happened in this case.
A careful review of the record in this case establishes that Officer Simpson did opine on an ultimate issue in the domestic violence defense. When asked what conclusions he drew based on his observations, Simpson responded by saying that the observations of the evidence proved that Batie “started the disturbance, continued, and assaulted and injured,” her husband (emphasis added). Simpson did not simply testify as to the reason why he treated Batie as the primary physical aggressor and choose to proceed with charging her-testimony that would otherwise be admissible. Rather, Simpson asserted that his observations proved Batie started the affray. This is exactly the type of improper testimony that must be omitted from trial, and we find that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing it.
Notwithstanding our determination that the trial court abused its discretion, we must nevertheless overrule the assignment of error because the testimony amounted to harmless error. Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant shall be disregarded. The term “substantial rights” has been interpreted to require that the error be prejudicial-that is that it must have affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings.
Here, it cannot be said that allowing the testimony resulted in prejudice to the defendant. At trial, the state introduced numerous photographic exhibits detailing the extent of the husband’s injuries. Many of these exhibits detailed what appeared to be numerous, severe, scratch marks down the length of the husband’s face. The photos also depicted a large burn mark on his forearm- which corroborated the husband’s testimony that Batie attacked him with a hot iron. Other photos depicted what appeared to be bite marks on the husband’s upper arm, and pictures showing a bloody, swollen lip. Further, Simpson testified that when he arrived at the Batie household, the appellant did not have any visible marks on her that would indicate that her husband had been physical with her. In fact, the only evidence supporting Batie’s claim that she was acting in self-defense, was her own trial testimony. Therefore, even if the trial court had excluded Simpson’s improper testimony, it cannot be said that the exclusion would have had any effect on the outcome of the case.
Batie [also] argues that the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In a manifest weight analysis, an appellate court reviews the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and … resolves conflicts in the evidence. An appellate court may not merely substitute its view for that of the jury, but must find that the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.
When analyzing a manifest weight challenge, appellate courts must give special deference to the conclusion reached by the trier of fact. Accordingly, reversal on manifest weight grounds is reserved for the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.
We cannot say that this is the exceptional case that warrants reversal because the jury clearly lost its way. While contradictory testimony was presented by both the victim and the defendant at trial, the pictures of the victim’s injuries, together with the fact that Officer Simpson testified that there was not a mark on the appellant, is enough for a jury to conclude that Batie committed an act of domestic violence against her husband and was not acting in self-defense. Batie’s second assignment of error is also overruled. Judgment affirmed.
Questions
1. List all the facts relevant to deciding whether Myah Batie was the initial aggressor.