State v. Skirvin

Summary

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed James Michael Skirvin’s convictions arising from an assault on his daughter, a high-speed police pursuit, firearm discharges, collisions with police vehicles, and drug possession. The court rejected challenges concerning jury instructions, sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence, and the voluntariness and mental state underlying the convictions.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions under R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) because Skirvin knowingly fired a shotgun in the direction of officers who were in his path, thereby attempting to cause physical harm with a deadly weapon.
2. The convictions involving the eastbound shooting were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
3. The conviction for felonious assault against Richardson was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the jury reasonably could reject Skirvin's claim that he was unconscious and acted involuntarily when he drove into the police cruisers.
4. The aggravated-possession conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on aggravated menacing for the shooting counts because the evidence would not reasonably support both acquittal of felonious assault and conviction of aggravated menacing.
6. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to give a blackout instruction sua sponte.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Skirvin's convictions for felonious assault based on firing a shotgun toward Sergeant Cairns and Detective Samples.
2. Whether the convictions for felonious assault against Cairns and Samples were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
3. Whether the conviction for felonious assault against Officer Richardson was against the manifest weight of the evidence where Skirvin claimed he was unconscious when his truck struck the police cruisers.
4. Whether the aggravated-possession-of-drugs conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on aggravated menacing as an inferior-degree offense for the shooting counts.
6. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to provide a sua sponte blackout instruction concerning the crash into Officer Richardson's cruiser.

Disposition

affirmed