State v. Sturgell

2021-Ohio-2432 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021) · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Montgomery County · July 16, 2021 · No. Appellate Case No. 28931

Summary

The Second District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Joseph Sturgell’s convictions for domestic violence and assault. The court held that sufficient evidence established that the victim was a family or household member under R.C. 2919.25, including evidence that the parties cohabited and shared familial responsibilities and consortium.

Court
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Montgomery County
Writing for the Court
Welbaum, J.; Tucker, P.J.; Epley, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
July 16, 2021
Docket number
Appellate Case No. 28931
Procedural posture
Joseph Sturgell appealed his convictions in the Dayton Municipal Court for domestic violence and assault, arguing that the domestic-violence conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence because the State failed to prove that the victim was a family or household member.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law, asking whether any rational factfinder, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the essential elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Precedential value
Published appellate opinion; precedential
Parties
Joseph Sturgell v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedurestatutory interpretationstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal proceduredomestic violenceappellate litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the victim was a family or household member under R.C. 2919.25(A) and (F), including whether the evidence established that she was a person living as a spouse with Sturgell.
  2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Sturgell's domestic-violence conviction.

Holdings

  1. The evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude that the victim was a person living as a spouse and therefore a family or household member under R.C. 2919.25. The couple's nontraditional, homeless lifestyle did not preclude a finding of cohabitation.
  2. The domestic-violence conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, and Sturgell's assignment of error was overruled.

Key quotations

[T]he essential elements of “cohabitation” are (1) sharing of familial or financial responsibilities and (2) consortium. (¶ 13)
courts should be guided by common sense and by ordinary human experience. (¶ 12)
When guided by common sense and ordinary human experience, these facts, combined with the couple’s ongoing sexual relationship, could lead a rational factfinder to conclude that the victim was “a person living as spouse” as that phrase is defined under R.C. 2919.25(F)(2). (¶ 16)

Factual background

Sturgell and the victim had been in a romantic and sexual relationship for approximately one and one-half years. Although both were homeless and stayed in different locations, the victim testified that they lived together wherever they went, moved together, took care of each other, and provided for each other. On May 30, 2020, Sturgell repeatedly punched, kicked, and struck the victim under a bridge in Dayton, causing extensive injuries, and the municipal court convicted him of domestic violence and assault.

Procedural history

Sturgell was charged by complaint with first-degree-misdemeanor domestic violence and assault. After a bench trial, the Dayton Municipal Court overruled his Criminal Rule 29 motion for acquittal, found him guilty of both offenses, and imposed jail, house arrest, probation, and related conditions. The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Court Of Appeals Of Ohio Second Appellate District Montgomery County