Domestic Violence Conviction Affirmed, Sufficiency of Evidence

Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 22, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Akron v. Atkinson

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 1441
• Docket Number: 31383, 31384

• Judges: Stevenson

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (26.4K)

• PDF

Syllabus

domestic violence, sufficiency of the evidence, knowingly, physical harm, "family or household member," cohabitation

Combined Opinion

[Cite as Akron v. Atkinson, 2026-Ohio-1441.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

CITY OF AKRON C.A. Nos. 31383, 31384

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
CLIFFORD ATKINSON AKRON MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE Nos. 2022-CR-03747
2023-CR-02864

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: April 22, 2026

STEVENSON, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Clifford Atkinson appeals the judgment of the Akron

Municipal Court that found him guilty of domestic violence, alleging that his conviction was not

supported by sufficient evidence. This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} Mr. Atkinson was charged with one count of domestic violence under Akron City

Code 135.16(A) and one count of resisting arrest under Akron City Code 136.13, both

misdemeanors of the first degree. At the City’s request, the resisting arrest charge was later

amended to a second-degree misdemeanor. Mr. Atkinson pleaded not guilty to the charges and the

matter proceeded to a jury trial.

{¶3} L.H. testified at trial that she grew up with Mr. Atkinson and that the two had

“reconnected a few years” prior to the May 28, 2022 incident that gave rise to this appeal. The two

became romantically and intimately involved after reconnecting, with Mr. Atkinson “stay[ing]” at
2

L.H.’s home for “about [a] couple months[.]” L.H. drove Mr. Atkinson to work and appointments

while he stayed at her home as she was trying to “get [Mr. Atkinson] on the right track . . . so he

could pay his rent and support hi[m]self.” Mr. Atkinson helped L.H. with her dogs. L.H. testified

that the couple broke up in May of 2022 after she realized that Mr. Atkinson could not “hold [his]

own weight.”

{¶4} Mr. Atkinson went to L.H.’s home on May 28, 2022, and the parties ate together.

L.H. drove Mr. Atkinson to his house after he finished eating. She testified that “[w]hen I went to

drop [Mr. Atkinson] off, as usual, [he said] ‘We need to talk.’” L.H. testified that Mr. Atkinson

“snatched my keys out [of] the ignition, took both of my cell phones, and got out of the car” after

she told him that there was nothing to talk about.

{¶5} L.H. knocked on a neighbor’s door and “bamm[ed]” on the door of the rooming

house where Mr. Atkinson lived looking for help after he took her car keys and phones. She

testified that Mr. Atkinson then grabbed her and started to choke her. L.H. testified that she

“couldn’t breathe” when Mr. Atkinson was choking her. Mr. Atkinson “got off of [her]” after a

neighbor yelled at him. L.H. testified that Mr. Atkinson scratched her neck causing her to bleed.

{¶6} Akron Police Officer Matthew Ritzinger testified that he went to Mr. Atkinson’s

residence in response to a 911 call reporting that a “male [was] beating a female.” He testified that

he observed “injuries to the right side of [L.H.’s] neck.” The injuries “look[ed] like scratch marks

and there was blood going down the right side of her neck.”

{¶7} Officer Ritzinger was wearing a body worn camera and the video from the camera

was played at trial and admitted into evidence. Scratches and blood are visible on L.H. in the video.

L.H. is seen in the video telling Officer Ritzinger that she and Mr. Atkinson lived together “for
3

like a month or so” “last year” and she acknowledged that they were boyfriend/girlfriend while

living together.

{¶8} Mr. Atkinson did not call any witnesses or testify in his defense at trial.

{¶9} The jury found Mr. Atkinson guilty of domestic violence and resisting arrest. The

court sentenced Mr. Atkinson after a pretrial investigation on the domestic violence charge. It

sentenced Mr. Atkinson to 180 days in jail, with 164 days suspended and credit for 16 days served.

The court ordered that Mr. Atkinson complete six months of probation, with anger management,

and that he comply with Portage Path services. Mr. Atkinson was ordered to pay a fine and court

costs and to have no contact with L.H.1

{¶10} Mr. Atkinson appeals his domestic violence conviction, asserting one assignment

of error for this Court’s review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I

THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

{¶11} Mr. Atkinson argues in his sole assignment of error that there was insufficient

evidence to support a domestic violence conviction. We disagree.

{¶12} “Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law that

this Court reviews de novo.” State v. Williams, 2009-Ohio-6955, ¶ 18 (9th Dist.), citing State v.

1
Mr. Atkinson was later charged in Akron Municipal Court Case No. 23 CR 2864 with
criminal damaging or endangering under Akron City Code 131.06, a misdemeanor of the second
degree. He appealed after pleading guilty in that case and that appeal is before this Court in Case
No. 31384. This Court consolidated Mr. Atkinson’s appeals for briefing and argument. Mr.
Atkinson has not assigned any errors or presented any issues concerning the criminal damaging or
endangering charge. Further, he has not assigned any error regarding his resisting arrest conviction.
The only error assigned in this case pertains to Mr. Atkinson’s domestic violence conviction.
4

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). The relevant inquiry is whether the prosecution has

met its burden of production by presenting sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. Thompkins

at 390. “For purposes of a sufficiency analysis, this Court must view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the State.” State v. Zappa, 2022-Ohio-243, ¶ 7 (9th Dist.), citing Jackson v. Virginia,

443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). This Court does not evaluate credibility, and we make all reasonable

inferences in favor of the State. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273 (1991). Evidence is

sufficient if it allows the trier of fact to reasonably conclude that the essential elements of the crime

were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

{¶13} Mr. Atkinson was found guilty of domestic violence under Akron City Code

135.16(A) which states that “[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm

to a family or household member.” This Code is identical to R.C. 2919.25(A).

{¶14} Mr. Atkinson does not challenge the “knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical

harm” requirement set forth in Akron City Code 135.16(A). He argues, rather, that there was

insufficient evidence to establish that L.H. was a “family or household member.” The City argues

that the evidence sufficiently established that L.H. was a “family or household member.”

{¶15} Akron City Code 135.16(E)(1)(A)(i) defines “[f]amily or household member” as

“[a] spouse, [or] a person living as a spouse” “who is residing or has resided with the offender[.]”

“Person living as a spouse” is defined in relevant part as:

a person . . . who otherwise has cohabitated with the offender within the five years
prior to the date of the alleged commission of the act in question.

Akron City Code 135.16(E)(2). The Code’s definition of “[p]erson living as a spouse” is identical

to the definition in R.C. 2919.25(F)(2). “Cohabitation” is not defined in either the Akron City Code

or the Ohio Revised Code.
5

{¶16} In State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459, 462 (1997), the Ohio Supreme Court

defined the term “cohabitation” as contained in R.C. 2919.25 and declined “to adopt a narrow

definition of ‘reside’ which would limit ‘family or household members’ to those who actually

share one residential address.” The Court held that “[t]he offense of domestic violence . . . arises

out of the relationship of the parties rather than their exact living circumstances” and found that

“[t]he essential elements of ‘cohabitation’ are (1) sharing of familial or financial responsibilities

and (2) consortium.” Id. at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. The Court proceeded to list

possible factors that could establish cohabitation under the domestic violence statute, stating:

[p]ossible factors establishing shared familial or financial responsibilities might
include provisions for shelter, food, clothing, utilities, and/or commingled assets.
Factors that might establish consortium include mutual respect, fidelity, affection,
society, cooperation, solace, comfort, aid of each other, friendship, and conjugal
relations.

Id. at 465. Importantly, the “factors are unique to each case and how much weight, if any, to give

to each of these factors must be decided on a case-by-case basis by the trier of fact.” Id. The Court

later clarified that the sharing of familial or financial responsibilities is not required when there is

evidence that the victim and the offender lived together. State v. McClothan, 2014-Ohio-85, ¶ 13.

{¶17} Here, L.H. testified that she had been in a romantic and intimate relationship with

Mr. Atkinson after reconnecting “a few years ago[.]” She testified that the couple had “[j]ust

recently” broken up. L.H. testified Mr. Atkinson had stayed at her home for “about [a] couple [of]

months” while they were in a relationship and that she drove him to work and appointments during

that time. L.H. is heard telling Officer Ritzinger in the body worn camera video that she and Mr.

Atkinson lived together “for like a month or so” “last year” and she acknowledged that they were

boyfriend/girlfriend while living together. Viewing this testimony in the light most favorable to
6

the prosecution as required, it is sufficient to establish that L.H. and Mr. Atkinson were “family or

household member[s].”

{¶18} We conclude that there is sufficient evidence upon which a jury could reasonably

conclude that all elements of domestic violence in violation of Akron City Code 135.16(A) were

established beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Atkinson’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

III.

{¶19} For the reasons stated above, Mr. Atkinson’s assignment of error is overruled. The

judgment of the Akron Municipal Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Akron Municipal

Court, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellant.

SCOT STEVENSON
FOR THE COURT
7

CARR, P. J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

JOHN CHAPMAN, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

BRIAN T. ANGELONI, Director of Law, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant Director
of Law, for Appellee.