COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- Case No. 19 CAA 01 0005 FREDERICK CROWDER

Defendant-Appellant O P I N IO N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 18 CRI 090501

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 14, 2019

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL APRIL F. CAMPBELL Delaware County Prosecutor Campbell Law, LLC 550 Metro Place South, Ste. #100 R. JOSEPH VARVEL Dublin, Ohio 43017 Assistant Prosecutor Delaware County Prosecutor’s Office 145 North Union Street Delaware, Ohio 43015

Delaware County, Case No. 19 CAA 01 0005 2

Hoffman, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Frederick Crowder appeals his conviction and sentence entered by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, on one count of domestic violence, following a jury trial. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

{¶2} On September 14, 2018, the Delaware County Grand Jury indicted

Appellant on two counts of domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), felonies of the third degree. Appellant appeared before the trial court for arraignment on September

26, 2018, and entered a plea of not guilty.

{¶3} The matter proceeded to trial on December 4, 2018. The following evidence was adduced.

{¶4} At approximately 2:40 p.m. on September 6, 2018, Delaware Police Officer

Samuel Walter and two other officers were dispatched to a domestic dispute at 275

Chelsea Street, Apartment C, Delaware, Ohio. When the officers arrived, Officer Walter knocked on the door and Kerri Housler answered. Housler appeared “very emotional, anxious, nervous” and “[i]t was obvious she recently had been crying.” Tr. at 130. Housler had visible bruising on her face, neck, and arms, some of which appeared to be recent.

Housler informed the officers she was upset because she was being evicted. When

Officer Walter asked Housler about her injuries, she responded she had fallen down the stairs.

{¶5} Dispatch had advised Officer Walter of the history with Appellant, who was residing at the residence. Housler told Officer Walter Appellant was not at home, but she would not allow the officer into the residence. Officer Dylan Griffin informed Officer Walter Delaware County, Case No. 19 CAA 01 0005 3

Appellant was leaving out the back. Housler denied any physical violence had occurred

between herself and Appellant. Thereafter, the officers ended their investigation.

{¶6} Katelyn Hovis testified Appellant was her sister Kerri Housler’s live-in boyfriend and the father of Housler’s two children. On September 6, 2018, Hovis was

with her and Housler’s mother when their mother received a telephone call from Housler, who was screaming. After the phone went dead and attempts to reach Housler failed,

Hovis proceeded to her sister’s residence. Hovis found Housler scared and crying.

Appellant was not at the residence when Hovis arrived. Housler received a telephone call and left to pick up Appellant. Hovis moved her car near some dumpsters so Appellant would not see her.

{¶7} When Housler returned with Appellant, Hovis exited her vehicle, approached Appellant, and the two began to argue. Appellant entered the residence and retrieved some of his belongings. Appellant, Housler, and their two children left in

Housler’s vehicle. Hovis returned to her vehicle and followed behind. While Housler was driving, Appellant hit her in the face with his fist, causing the vehicle to jerk. Appellant struck Housler a second time and the car swerved. Hovis called 9-1-1. Hovis continued to follow Housler and Appellant until the Delaware Police Department initiated the stop of

Housler’s vehicle. Hovis subsequently spoke to police officers.

{¶8} Kerri Housler testified Appellant is the father of her two children. She and

Appellant lived together at 275 Chelsea Street in Delaware, Ohio. Housler recalled, on the afternoon of September 6, 2018, she and Appellant were arguing about her moving to Columbus with him. Housler explained she was going to be evicted if Appellant did not Delaware County, Case No. 19 CAA 01 0005 4

vacate the residence, and she did not want to move. The police arrived, but left after

Housler informed them she and Appellant were “just arguing”.

{¶9} Hovis arrived as the police were leaving. Housler instructed Appellant to

“get his stuff” and “get in the car”. Housler planned to drive Appellant to his mother’s

house in Columbus. As she turned onto South Sandusky Street, she noticed her sister

was following them. Housler called her sister, telling Hovis, “Please don’t follow. You’re

just making things worse.” Tr. Vol. I at 184. After Housler hung up, Appellant took the

phone out of her hands. Housler grabbed it back, causing the vehicle to swerve. Housler

indicated the incident occurred in the city of Delaware.

{¶10} On September 6, 2018, at approximately 5:32 p.m., Delaware County

Sheriff’s Deputy Nicholas Ambrozich and his partner, Deputy Andrew Lee, received “a

call of a rolling domestic that was southbound on U.S. 23 coming from the city of

Delaware.” Tr. Vol. I at 197-198. Deputy Ambrozich explained “a rolling domestic” was

a domestic violence situation which occurs in a motor vehicle. The deputies proceeded

to U.S. 23 from the area of the Alum Creek boat ramp in order to locate the vehicle.

Deputy Ambrozich observed the vehicle on U.S. 23, south of Ohio State Rte 750, near

Highbanks Road, and initiated a traffic stop. Deputy Ambrozich testified the stop occurred

in Delaware County, Ohio. Housler was subsequently identified as the driver and

Appellant as the passenger.

{¶11} After hearing all the evidence and deliberating, the jury acquitted Appellant

of Count One of the Indictment, but found him guilty of Count Two. The trial court

sentenced Appellant to a period of incarceration of 24 months. Delaware County, Case No. 19 CAA 01 0005 5

{¶12} It is from this conviction and sentence Appellant appeals, raising as his sole

assignment of error:

BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH VENUE BEYOND

A REASONABLE DOUBT, CROWDER’S CONVICTION SHOULD BE

REVERSED.

I.

{¶13} Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution provides an accused with the

right to “a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is

alleged to have been committed.” (Emphasis added). R.C. 2901.12(A) sets forth the general rule requiring the trial in a criminal case be held “in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, and in the territory of which the offense or any element of the offense was committed.” R.C. 2901.12(B) When the offense or any element of the offense was committed in an aircraft, motor vehicle, train, watercraft, or other vehicle, in transit, and it cannot reasonably be determined in which jurisdiction the offense was committed, the offender may be tried in any jurisdiction through which the aircraft, motor vehicle, train, watercraft, or other vehicle passed.

{¶14} “The purpose of the venue requirement is to give the defendant the right to be tried in the vicinity of the alleged criminal activity, and to limit the state from indiscriminately seeking a favorable location for trial that might be an inconvenience or disadvantage to the defendant.” State v. Koval, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2005–06–083, Delaware County, Case No. 19 CAA 01 0005 6

2006–Ohio–5377, ¶ 9, citing State v. Rankin, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2004–06–015,

2005–Ohio–6165, ¶ 11.

{¶15} “Although venue is not a material element of the offense charged, venue is

a fact which must be proved in criminal prosecutions unless it is waived by the defendant.”

State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St.3d 475, 477, 453 N.E.2d 716 (1983). “The standard of proof

is beyond a reasonable doubt, although venue need not be proved in express terms so

long as it is established by all the facts and circumstances in the case.” Id. “[I]t is not

essential that the venue of the crime be proven in express terms, provided it be established by all the facts and circumstances in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime was committed in the county and state as alleged in the indictment.” State

v. Hampton, 134 Ohio St.3d 447, 2012-Ohio-5688, 983 N.E.2d 324, ¶ 19, quoting State

v. Dickerson, 77 Ohio St. 34, 82 N.E. 969 (1907), paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶16} “The purpose of the venue requirement is to give the defendant the right to

be tried in the vicinity of the alleged criminal activity, and to limit the state from

indiscriminately seeking a favorable location for trial that might be an inconvenience or

disadvantage to the defendant.” State v. Webster, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102833, 2016-

Ohio-2624, ¶ 78 (Citation omitted). Consequently, the requirement of “[v]enue is satisfied

where there is a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the county of the trial.” State v. Chintalapalli, 88 Ohio St.3d 43, 45, 723 N.E.2d 111 (2000), citing Draggo, 65 Ohio

St.2d at 92, 418 N.E.2d 1343.

{¶17} Appellant submits the state did not establish venue, either expressly or

implicitly. Appellant further contends R.C. 2901.12(B) is inapplicable as the venue could have reasonably been determined, but the state failed to do so. We disagree. Delaware County, Case No. 19 CAA 01 0005 7

{¶18} Housler, the victim, testified officers initiated a stop of her vehicle on

September 6, 2018, and the stop occurred in the city and county of Delaware. Hovis was following Housler’s vehicle and observed Appellant strike Housler, causing the Housler’s vehicle to swerve. Hovis immediately called 9-1-1. Hovis continued to follow Housler and Appellant until Delaware County Sheriff’s Deputies responded to the call. Delaware

County Sheriff’s Deputy Nicholas Ambrozich and his partner, Deputy Andrew Lee, received “a call of a rolling domestic that was southbound on U.S. 23 coming from the city of Delaware.” Deputy Ambrozich testified he initiated a traffic stop of the subject vehicle on U.S. 23, south of Ohio State Rte 750, near Highbanks Road, in Delaware

County, Ohio.

{¶19} Based upon the foregoing, we find the state proved venue beyond a reasonable doubt. We further find venue was established both expressly and implicitly.

{¶20} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

{¶21} The judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J. Gwin, P.J. and Baldwin, J. concur