FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Wednesday, August 20, 2025
CAPTION: STATE V. PROTICH
APPEAL NO.: C-240507
TRIAL NOS.: C/24/CRB/7287/A/B/C
KEY WORDS: CRIMINAL — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — OBSTRUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS — CRIMINAL TRESPASS —RESISTING ARREST
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for obstructing official business was supported by sufficient evidence as the totality of the defendant’s interaction with the police in which defendant argued with officers, refused to provide identification, attempted to walk away from officers after being asked to provide identification, “slung” his arm back when an officer grabbed his arm, and then physically resisted the officers’ attempts to restrain him constituted a substantial stoppage of the officers’ official duties.
Defendant’s conviction for criminal trespass was supported by sufficient evidence where defendant refused to leave a brewery after being told by an employee to leave three times and defendant did not leave until learning that the police had been called.
Defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest was supported by sufficient evidence where there was a lawful basis for his arrest as the police possessed probable cause to believe that defendant had criminally trespassed and obstructed official business.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, P.J.; NESTOR and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: State v. Walker
APPEAL No.: C-240551
TRIAL No.: 24/crb/7023
KEY WORDS: R.C. 2921.13 – obstructing official business – sufficiency – manifest weight – purpose – substantial stoppage
SUMMARY: The trial court’s finding that defendant acted with a purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the officers in the performance of their duties within the meaning of the obstructing-official-business statute was supported by sufficient evidence where the State’s evidence showed that uniformed police officers had been waiting to warn and cite defendant at the home of his ex-girlfriend, but that defendant, upon meeting the officers’ eyes in a well-lit hallway, fled, despite the officers’ commands to halt.
The trial court’s finding that defendant acted with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the officers in the performance of their duties within the meaning of the obstructing-official-business statute was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, because circumstantial evidence of specific intent was not manifestly outweighed by the evidence that the officers never stated they were police and that defendant sat down and complied upon seeing additional officers in his path after a 40-second flight.
The trial court’s finding that defendant hampered or impeded the officers in the performance of their duties within the meaning of the obstructing-official-business statute was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where officers had been waiting outside the apartment of defendant’s former partner in order to cite defendant on an outstanding warrant and warn him to stay away, and where they were delayed in doing so by defendant’s 40-second flight through a hallway, down multiple flights of stairs, around the apartment building, and over a fence.
JUDGMENT: affirmed
JUDGES: OPINION by Crouse, P.J.; NESTOR and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. JEFFRIES
APPEAL NO.: C-240695
TRIAL NO.: 24/CRB/18338/A
KEY WORDS: R.C. 2921.331 — FAILURE TO COMPLY — SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for failure to comply in violation of R.C. 2921.331(A) was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence presented at trial established that defendant ignored repeated commands from officers to exit from a vehicle in which he was a passenger after the officers conducted a traffic stop of that vehicle.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.