State v. Reeder

[Cite as State v. Reeder, 2023-Ohio-4587.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2023-05-062

: OPINION

- vs - 12/18/2023

:

DANIEL REEDER, :

Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT

Case No. 22CRB02308 B

Laura R. Gibson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Engel and Martin, LLC, and Jim L. Hardin, for appellant.

S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Daniel Reeder, appeals his conviction in the Hamilton Municipal

Court after a jury found him guilty of one count of fourth-degree misdemeanor disorderly

conduct. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm Reeder's disorderly conduct conviction.

{¶ 2} On the morning of October 6, 2022, Reeder was arrested and thereafter

Butler CA2023-05-062

charged via a complaint with two counts of disorderly conduct in violation of R.C.

2917.11(A)(2) and (A)(3).1 Disorderly conduct is usually charged as a minor misdemeanor

pursuant to R.C. 2917.11(E)(2). However, in this case, each of the two counts against

Reeder were charged as fourth-degree misdemeanors. This was done in accordance with

R.C. 2917.11(E)(3)(a), which provides that disorderly conduct should be charged as a

fourth-degree misdemeanor if "[t]he offender persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable

warning or request to desist."

{¶ 3} The charges arose after Reeder, a stay-at-home father to seven children, got

upset, stormed out of his house, and began screaming and cursing as he watched his

vehicle being loaded up and towed away off the street in front of his home located on Van

Buren Drive in Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio.2 Reeder continued on with his disruptive,

profanity-laced tirade even after he was told multiple times by a Hamilton police officer on

the scene, Officer Carla Browning, that he would be placed under arrest if he did not stop

with his unruly, and upsetting behavior. There is no dispute that Reeder's continued

screaming and cursing occurred in the presence of several of his neighbors who had come

outside in response to Reeder's yelling to see what all the commotion was about.

{¶ 4} On April 10, 2023, the matter proceeded to a one-day jury trial. During trial,

the jury heard testimony from a total of five witnesses. This included testimony from the

Hamilton police officer referenced above, Officer Browning, the tow truck driver who towed

Reeder's vehicle, Stanley Bishop, and from Reeder himself. Upon the conclusion of this

testimony, as well as the testimony from one of Reeder's neighbors who testified that she

could hear Reeder cussing and carrying on from inside her home situated catty-cornered

1. Reeder was also charged in a separate complaint with one count resisting arrest in violation of R.C.

2921.33, a first-degree misdemeanor. A jury found Reeder not guilty of this charge.

2. The vehicle in question was a Hyundai Santa Fe that was displaying plates that had been expired for over

a year.

-2-

Butler CA2023-05-062

across the street, the jury returned a verdict finding Reeder guilty of one count of fourth-

degree misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

{¶ 5} On April 12, 2023, the trial court held a sentencing hearing where it sentenced

Reeder to 30 days in jail, with 15 of those days suspended, and two years of community

control.3 The trial court also ordered Reeder to pay a $100 fine plus court costs. The trial

court imposed this sentence after noting it was Reeder's "attitude about what was going on

that day" that was "totally," and "completely inappropriate" when considering he was

directing his vitriol "towards an officer," Officer Browning. Reeder now appeals his

disorderly conduct conviction, raising the following single assignment of error for review.

{¶ 6} AS A MATTER OF LAW, APPELLANT'S CONDUCT DID NOT CONSTITUTE

DISORDERLY CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2917.11.

{¶ 7} In his single assignment of error, Reeder argues the trial court erred by

denying his Crim.R. 29(A) motion to acquit him of disorderly conduct. Reeder also argues

the jury's verdict finding him guilty of disorderly conduct was against the manifest weight of

the evidence. We disagree with both of Reeder's claims.

{¶ 8} Pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A), the trial court must "order the entry of a judgment

of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment, * * * if the evidence is

insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses." Given this language, it is

now well-established that "[t]he standard of review for a denial of a Crim.R. 29(A) motion

for acquittal is the same as the standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim."

State v. Wilson, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2021-10-023, 2022-Ohio-1146, ¶ 27. "A claim

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence invokes a due process concern and raises the

question whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of

3. The trial court stayed Reeder's sentence pending this appeal.

-3-

Butler CA2023-05-062

law." State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, ¶ 165, citing State v.

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). Such a challenge "requires a determination as

to whether the state has met its burden of production at trial." State v. Boles, 12th Dist.

Brown No. CA2012-06-012, 2013-Ohio-5202, ¶ 34. "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.'"

State v. Roper, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2021-05-019, 2022-Ohio-244, ¶ 39, quoting

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. "'Proof beyond a

reasonable doubt' is proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely

and act upon it in the most important of the person's own affairs." R.C. 2901.05(E).

{¶ 9} Unlike the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review, which applies only

to the state's burden of production, "a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review

applies to the state's burden of persuasion." State v. Messenger, 171 Ohio St.3d 227, 2022-

Ohio-4562, ¶ 26. "To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, this court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable

inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the

conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest

miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered." State

v. Lewis, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-07-128, 2020-Ohio-3762, ¶ 18, citing State v. Wilks,

154 Ohio St.3d 359, 2018-Ohio-1562, ¶ 168. But, even then, a determination regarding the

witnesses' credibility is primarily for the trier of fact to decide. State v. Baker, 12th Dist.

Butler No. CA2019-08-146, 2020-Ohio-2882, ¶ 30, citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d

230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. Therefore, given that it is primarily the trier of

fact who decides witness credibility, this court will overturn a conviction on manifest-weight

grounds "only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at trial weighs

-4-

Butler CA2023-05-062

heavily in favor of acquittal." State v. Kaufhold, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-09-148, 2020-

Ohio-3835, ¶ 10. When reviewing a jury verdict, this occurs "only when there is unanimous

disagreement with the verdict." State v. Marcum, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2015-04-011,

2016-Ohio-263, ¶ 10, citing State v. Gibbs, 134 Ohio App.3d 247, 255 (12th Dist.1999).

{¶ 10} As noted above, Reeder was convicted of one count of fourth-degree

misdemeanor disorderly conduct in violation of either R.C. 2917.11(A)(2) or (A)(3). 4

Pursuant to R.C. 2917.11(A)(2), no person shall recklessly cause inconvenience,

annoyance, or alarm to another by "[m]aking unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse

utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language

to any person[.]" Similarly, under R.C. 2917.11(A)(3), no person shall recklessly cause

inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by "[i]nsulting, taunting, or challenging

another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent

response[.]" "The Ohio Supreme Court has held that 'a person may not be found guilty of

disorderly conduct under subsection (A)(2), which proscribes offensively coarse utterances

and grossly abusive language, unless the words spoken are fighting words.'" State v.

Myers, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2012-12-027, 2014-Ohio-3384, ¶ 8, quoting State v.

Bailey, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-010641, 2002-Ohio-3133, ¶ 16, citing State v. Hoffman, 57

Ohio St.2d 129 (1979), paragraph one of the syllabus. However, "[a] conviction for

disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(3) need not be based solely on an individual

using 'fighting words.'" State v. Winters, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29157, 2022-Ohio-2061,

¶ 26. Ohio courts, including this court, have instead "interpreted R.C. 2917.11(A)(3) as

prohibiting both the offender's use of 'fighting words' and/or conduct likely to 'provoke a

4. The jury's verdict form setting forth its verdict finding Reeder guilty of disorderly conduct does not specify

which subsection it found Reeder guilty: R.C. 2917.11(A)(2), (A)(3), or both. The record is nevertheless clear

that Reeder was sentenced on just one of the two counts of disorderly conduct for which he was charged.

-5-

Butler CA2023-05-062

violent response.'" State v. Schils, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2019-08-67, 2020-Ohio-

2883, ¶ 19, citing State v. Miller, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-86-281, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 5942,

*4 (Feb. 27, 1987).

{¶ 11} Reeder argues his disorderly conduct conviction was not supported by

sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence because, "while

certainly containing curse words," anything that he may have yelled at Officer Browning "did

not rise to the level of fighting words." Reeder instead claims that any "swear words [being]

uttered" to Officer Browning was merely him "commenting upon the situation." Reeder also

argues that his disorderly conduct conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and

was against the manifest weight of the evidence because he did not threaten, lunge, or

attack Officer Browning, nor did he threaten or interfere with the tow truck driver, Stanley

Bishop, while he was loading up and towing away his vehicle. To support these arguments,

Reeder notes that there were no children present who witnessed his tirade, and that his

outburst "was not in a public parking lot or business lot," but in a residential area just outside

of his own home. This is in addition to Reeder claiming that he only "interacted with" Officer

Browning for "about five minutes, mostly on his own property."

{¶ 12} However, even when taking all of Reeder's claims as true, the record plainly

establishes that Reeder's disorderly conduct conviction was not based on the content of his

speech, but on his actions and the manner in which his words were spoken. "Where a

charge of disorderly conduct is not based on the content of the speech involved but only

the manner of how the words are spoken, the fighting words requirement does not apply."

State v. Cunningham, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-145, 2006-Ohio-6373, ¶ 22. Such is

certainly the case here. This is because, as the record indicates, upon Reeder seeing

Bishop getting ready to tow his vehicle, Reeder stormed out of his house "irate," "cussing

and swearing." The record indicates that Reeder's "cussing and swearing," and overall

-6-

Butler CA2023-05-062

"confrontational" tone, continued as he hastily made his way down to the end of his driveway

to where Officer Browning was standing nearby. The "very upset" Reeder then began loudly

shouting and cursing at Officer Browning directly. This included, as one witness testified,

Reeder yelling "[a] lot of the fuck word," multiple instances of "bullshit," maybe a "[t]his is

fucking bullshit," and a few utterances of "get off of my lawn."

{¶ 13} This is in addition to the testimony offered by Stanley Bishop, the tow truck

driver who towed Reeder's vehicle, who testified that after Officer Browning tried to hand

Reeder a parking citation that Reeder began "yelling at her, get the fuck off his property,

fucking bitch," and "kept telling her to get the fuck off his property." Bishop testified that

during this time Reeder "screamed" at Officer Browning to "get off [his] fucking property"

several times and called Officer Browning a "fucking bitch" as much as five times. The

record indicates that Reeder's unruly, disruptive behavior continued even after Officer

Browning told Reeder multiple times to stop. The record also indicates that Reeder's

yelling, screaming, cursing, and carrying on caused at least three different families to come

out of their respective homes to see what was going on.

{¶ 14} What we find most significant, however, is Officer Browning's own testimony

regarding her interactions with Reeder on the morning in question. Specifically, as Officer

Browning testified:

[Reeder] came out of his house yelling about the vehicle being

impounded. Asked if – I believe he asked if he could move it,

but at that point the tow truck already had it going up on the

truck. We can't allow that.

So he continued just screaming and yelling, cursing, calling me

names. There were a lot of people starting to gather outside,

on porches and stuff. There were three or four different houses,

I noticed people outside.

So I had warned him at that point you need to stop yelling and

cursing or you're going to be placed under arrest. He continued,

and I told him several times, he continued.

-7-

Butler CA2023-05-062

And finally I gave him one last warning, say one more thing and

you're under arrest, because you can't do that. And he

continued, and at that point I went up on his porch, I told him he

was under arrest.

{¶ 15} Officer Browning also testified that, rather than the words that Reeder was

using, it was instead Reeder's loud yelling and screaming, which included Reeder

repeatedly shouting at Officer Browning to "get the fuck off his property," that "it was fucking

bullshit," and calling Officer Browning a "fucking bitch," along with Reeder "continuing to

behave that way and be[ing] loud and basically draw[ing] the public in" even after being

given at least three warnings to stop, that ultimately led to her placing Reeder under arrest

for disorderly conduct. When asked, Reeder did not refute any of Officer Browning's

testimony, nor did Reeder claim that Officer Browning had testified untruthfully while on the

stand. Reeder instead testified that he was merely providing the jury with his "story."

{¶ 16} This evidence, when taken in a light most favorable to the state, was more

than sufficient to support Reeder's disorderly conduct conviction under either R.C.

2917.11(A)(2) or (A)(3). This testimony, if believed, also firmly establishes that Reeder's

disorderly conduct conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. This is

because, as the above facts indicate, this case does not present one of those extraordinary

circumstances where the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily in favor of acquittal.

We believe this case instead falls under one of those cases where there was overwhelming

evidence presented at trial to support a finding of guilt. This holds true despite the fact that

Reeder believes he did nothing wrong that would have necessitated this case being initiated

in the first place. The jury disagreed, as did the trial court at sentencing, and so do we.

Therefore, because we find Reeder's disorderly conduct conviction was supported by

sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, Reeder's single

assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.

-8-

Butler CA2023-05-062

{¶ 17} Accordingly, having overruled Reeder's single assignment of error, Reeder's

appeal challenging his conviction for one count of fourth-degree misdemeanor disorderly

conduct is denied.

{¶ 18} Judgment affirmed.

PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.

-9-