State v. Smith

2026-Ohio-1262 · Ohio First District Court of Appeals · April 8, 2026 · No. C-250216

Summary

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals affirmed Melissa Smith’s conviction for disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(1). The court held that sufficient evidence supported findings that Smith engaged in fighting and turbulent behavior and recklessly caused inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. The court also concluded that the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, including with respect to Smith’s self-defense claim.

Court
Ohio First District Court of Appeals
Writing for the Court
Bock, Judge; Bock, J.; Kinsley, P.J.; Crouse, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio First District Court of Appeals
Decision date
April 8, 2026
Docket number
C-250216
Procedural posture
Smith appealed her conviction for misdemeanor disorderly conduct from the Hamilton County Municipal Court, challenging the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.
Standard of review
Sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and asking whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. A manifest-weight challenge is reviewed independently to determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a miscarriage of justice.
Precedential value
Published Ohio First District Court of Appeals opinion
Parties
Melissa Smith v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidenceappellate procedurestandard of reviewself defense

Practice areas

criminal procedureevidenceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether sufficient evidence supported Smith's conviction for disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(1).
  2. Whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
  3. Whether Smith's claimed self-defense and allegedly defensive conduct defeated the disorderly-conduct conviction.

Holdings

  1. Sufficient evidence supported a finding that Smith fought D.J. and engaged in turbulent behavior within the meaning of R.C. 2917.11(A)(1).
  2. Sufficient evidence supported a finding that Smith recklessly caused inconvenience, annoyance, and alarm to D.J. and D.J.'s mother.
  3. The conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the trial court did not clearly lose its way in resolving the conflicting testimony.

Key quotations

We review the sufficiency of the evidence by asking “‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (¶ 23)
Although we independently review the evidence, the trier of fact is in the “best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence presented.” (¶ 40)

Factual background

Melissa Smith encountered D.J. at a bar, livestreamed D.J.'s face and name despite D.J.'s requests that she stop, and continued following and broadcasting D.J. After D.J. went to her mother's house, Smith drove there, blocked the driveway at approximately 2:00 a.m., livestreamed D.J. and the house and address, and refused requests to move her car. A physical altercation occurred, Smith continued livestreaming, and responding officers described her as aggressive, irate, loud, and unhappy.

Procedural history

Smith was originally charged with misdemeanor assault under R.C. 2903.13 and filed a notice of self-defense. After the State's case, the trial court denied Smith's Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal and sua sponte amended the charge to misdemeanor disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11. The trial court found Smith guilty, sentenced her to one day in jail with one day of credit for time served, and the First District affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio First District Court Of Appeals Ohio First District Court Of Appeals