State v. Thompson - Strangulation Conviction Affirmed

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 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Thompson

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 1491
• Docket Number: F-25-008

• Judges: Zmuda

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (39.6K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Summary: Zmuda, J., writing for the majority affirms the judgment, finding sufficient, credible evidence to support the strangulation conviction.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Thompson, 2026-Ohio-1491.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
FULTON COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. F-25-008

Appellee Trial Court No. CR 25000074

v.

Dennis Thompson, Jr. DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: April 24, 2026

---

Luke T. Jones, Prosecutor and Allma-Tadema Miller,
Assistant Prosecutor for appellee.

Karin L. Coble, for appellant.

---

ZMUDA, J.,

I. Introduction

{¶ 1} This matter is on appeal of the judgment of the Fulton County Court of

Common Pleas, following a jury trial. Finding no error, we affirm.
II. Facts and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} Following an incident on May 15, 2025, in the home that appellant, Dennis

Thompson, shared with the victim, A.G., and their children,1 Thompson was indicted on

one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(2), a

misdemeanor of the first degree and one count of strangulation in violation of R.C.

2903.18(B)(3), a felony of the fourth degree. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, and the

following testimony was adduced.

{¶ 3} A.G. testified regarding her fraught relationship with Thompson over the

more than ten years they were together. She admitted that she had her own domestic

violence charges, with Thompson as victim, referencing an incident in which she wielded

a “tree saw” against him. Thompson’s online cheating was the major issue between the

couple, and A.G. admitted she searched Thompson’s phone frequently to uncover

evidence of his infidelities, characterizing her need to search the phone as obsessive.

{¶ 4} On the day of the incident, A.G. took Thompson’s phone into the home’s

bathroom to look for evidence of cheating. A.G. testified that Thompson entered the

bathroom and grabbed her from behind, one hand on the phone and the other gripping her

neck as he pulled her into his body. She testified, “It felt like a long time but I know it

wasn’t” and “…it hurt. He was squeezing me tight and it took my air away.” A.G. did not

report the incident right away. After her sister discovered what happened the next day, she

1
Thompson and A.G. share one child together, a son. A.G. also has an older daughter
from a prior relationship and Thompson has two children from a prior relationship.

2.
urged A.G. to make a report before calling police herself. After initial examination by

EMS, A.G. later went to the hospital for a more thorough examination. In addition to

bruising on her jaw, A.G. had a loose tooth near the area that Thompson had pressed with

his fingers. The State introduced photographs showing bruising along A.G.’s jaw, taken at

the hospital.

{¶ 5} At the time of the incident, A.G.’s teenaged daughter was in her bedroom,

across from the bathroom, watching a movie with her boyfriend. Both teens testified at

trial. The boyfriend testified that, although the bedroom door was closed, he heard what

sounded like a fight between Thompson and A.G. in the bathroom, and asked A.G.’s

daughter to turn the volume down. He testified that he heard choking, stating it sounded

like A.G. “was trying to breathe but couldn’t.” He told A.G.’s daughter that A.G. was

choking, and the daughter ran and opened her bedroom door. Her boyfriend followed her,

stopping at the bedroom doorway.

{¶ 6} A.G.’s daughter testified that she left her bedroom and stood outside the

bathroom and saw Thompson “hold my mom with his right hand like that and then I saw

her fall to the floor.” She added that Thompson was “[c]hoking my mom with his right

hand” and indicated by pointing that Thompson’s hand was on the front of A.G.’s neck.

Her testimony differed from A.G.’s account, however, placing A.G. and Thompson face-

to-face and describing the choking as “Darth-Vadering.” A.G.’s daughter testified that

A.G. fell and did not throw herself to the ground as later claimed by Thompson. After

falling, A.G.’s daughter saw A.G. put both hands to her neck and gasp for breath for

3.
about two to three minutes. A.G.’s daughter testified that she yelled at Thompson, saying,

“Why the fuck did you just choke my mom.” According to A.G.’s daughter, Thompson

said, “Fuck you,” before walking away.

{¶ 7} A.G.’s sister also testified. She was not present during the incident but

testified that she observed bruising on A.G.’s jaw the next day. A.G.’s sister reported the

incident to police, and officers initially responded to the sister’s house to gather

information before proceeding to Thompson’s and A.G.’s house.

{¶ 8} The responding officers testified regarding their investigation, following the

incident. Patrolman Audrie Hunt testified that she interviewed A.G. and photographed the

redness along the right side of A.G.’s neck. Hunt indicated A.G. was treated by EMS at

the police station, and the EMTs noted swelling and redness of the neck, recommending

A.G. go to the hospital, but A.G. initially declined seeking treatment at the hospital. A.G.

was given ice for the swelling. Hunt testified she was relatively new to the police force at

the time and had received no training regarding the new strangulation law, enacted in

2023.

{¶ 9} Sergeant Bradley Cash testified that he did have some training and knew to

look for physical signs of strangulation by examining the neck, but added, “We can’t see

what’s going on in the inside so we try to get them sent to the hospital or have like

medical, EMS or somebody, try to evaluate their neck area.” Cash did not see bruising the

day he responded, but testified that initial signs do not include bruising, but “we’ll get

some redness, maybe some swelling” with the bruising often emerging later. As a result,

4.
he testified that police often conduct a follow-up interview to photograph any bruising

within two to three days of the incident. However, Cash testified that he was not involved

with or present for any treatment received by A.G. Cash testified that he conducted the

interview with Thompson and only learned of marks on A.G.’s neck from others involved

in the investigation.

{¶ 10} At the close of the State’s case, Thompson moved for acquittal pursuant to

Crim.R. 29, and the trial court denied the motion.

{¶ 11} Thompson testified as the sole defense witness. He testified that A.G. drank

and was obsessed with his cheating, but he only interacted with other partners online, and

never physically cheated on the victim. Thompson also testified at length regarding the

“tree saw” incident, which was connected to the time he gave A.G. a black eye “by

accident.”

{¶ 12} As to the strangulation, Thompson testified that he had a hand on his

phone, with A.G.’s back to him. He testified that A.G. “dropped her body weight” on

purpose, and as she slid down, “that is when my arm made contact with her neck briefly

and I let go.” He also testified that the door was closed as this happened, and after A.G.

was sitting on the floor, the couple’s eight-year-old son opened the bathroom door and

A.G.’s daughter left her bedroom and approached the bathroom. Thompson testified that

A.G.’s daughter accused him of hitting her mom and he denied it. Thompson described

the sounds A.G. made as sobbing breaths and not gasps for air. He also testified that A.G.

had been drinking earlier in the day, before the incident.

5.
{¶ 13} When pressed on whether A.G. fell or threw herself to the ground,

Thompson insisted that he was trying to get his phone and A.G. dead-weight dropped to

prevent him from getting his phone, causing him to try to catch her with his left arm. He

also insisted that the gasping was just A.G.’s crying and the daughter and boyfriend

mistook the victim’s crying as gasping for air. When asked about his response to the

daughter’s accusation of choking her mom, Thompson answered that it was just “high

emotions” and anger toward the daughter that made him yell at her.

{¶ 14} At the close of testimony, the defense renewed the Crim.R. 29 motion, and

the trial court denied the motion.

{¶ 15} Following deliberation, the jury found appellant not guilty of domestic

violence and guilty of strangulation. On September 30, 2025, the trial court sentenced

Thompson to a two-year term of community control on the strangulation count, with

conditions including successful completion of a Batterer’s Intervention Program and no

contact with the victim or her residence. The trial court reserved a prison term of six to 18

months.

{¶ 16} Thompson filed a timely appeal of the judgment.

III. Assignment of Error

{¶ 17} Thompson asserts a single assignment of error on appeal, as follows:

The verdict was unsupported by sufficient evidence and was
therefore a violation of Due Process as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio
Constitution; the conviction is also against the manifest weight of the
evidence.

6.
IV. Analysis

{¶ 18} In challenging his conviction, Thompson argues that his conviction was

against the sufficiency of the evidence, resulting in a violation of his right to due process,

and that the conviction was against the weight of the credible evidence. While Thompson

challenges sufficiency and weight of the evidence in a single assignment of error, these

challenges address different legal issues and require different standards of review.

{¶ 19} “The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the

evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio

St.3d 380 (1997), paragraph two of the syllabus. Sufficiency concerns whether there is

adequate evidence on every element of the offense. Thompkins at 386-387; State v.

Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 13. The weight of the evidence concerns whether the state

satisfied its burden of persuasion regarding the required elements of the offense. State v.

Martin, 2022-Ohio-4175, ¶ 26, citing Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 19.

{¶ 20} The test of sufficiency is one of adequacy, and a conviction lacking

evidence as to every element of the offense is a denial of due process. Thompkins at 386-

387; Messenger at ¶ 13. In considering sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the

evidence most favorably for the prosecution and determine whether “any rational trier of

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable

doubt.” State v. Leonard, 2004-Ohio-6235, ¶ 77, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d

259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. We review sufficiency de novo, as a matter of

law. Messenger at ¶ 13.

7.
{¶ 21} In reviewing a challenge based on the weight of the evidence, however, the

appellate court sits as a “thirteenth juror” and considers “the evidence and all reasonable

inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving

conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way.” Thompkins at 388. Moreover, the

“weight” of the evidence is not about the amount of evidence, but instead, concerns

whether the credible evidence could induce the jury’s belief regarding the necessary

issues for the state’s case. Thompkins at 387.

{¶ 22} The jury found Thompson guilty of strangulation in violation of R.C.

2903.18(B)(3), requiring proof of the following:

(B) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:
…
(3) Cause or create a substantial risk of physical harm to another by
means of strangulation or suffocation.

The statute defines strangulation or suffocation as “any act that impedes the normal

breathing or circulation of the blood by applying pressure to the throat or neck, or by

covering the nose and mouth. R.C. 2903.18(A)(1). “Physical harm” means “any injury,

illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” R.C.

2901.01(A)(3).

{¶ 23} Thompson first argues that there was no evidence of strangulation, or an

impeding of breathing or circulation through pressure applied to the victim’s neck.

Thompson’s argument, however, acknowledges the testimony regarding each element and

merely argues that better evidence might have been introduced by the State. More

8.
importantly, Thompson argues that the discrepancy between his own testimony and that

of A.G. and her daughter support his argument of error. Thompson points to the lack of

expert, medical testimony of strangulation and argues there was no physical evidence of

strangulation, discounting A.G.’s testimony of pain and loss of air or the testimony and

photographs demonstrating swelling and bruising to the neck area. Thompson further

argues that, despite testimony that demonstrated Thompson squeezed A.G.’s neck causing

her to gasp for breath and feel pain, the amount of time A.G. claimed she was choked was

not long enough to impede someone’s breathing or cause a substantial risk of physical

harm, an argument that also lacks any supporting expert, medical evidence in the record.

Finally, Thompson argues that his own testimony negated any evidence that he acted

knowingly.

{¶ 24} In response, the State argues that the evidence introduced at trial

demonstrated both strangulation and actual physical harm, satisfying the sufficiency

requirement to sustain the conviction. We agree. As acknowledged by Thompson, the

State presented evidence that included testimony and photographs of the injury to A.G.’s

neck and jaw. We find no authority requiring expert testimony to demonstrate physical

harm, defined as “any injury…regardless of its gravity or duration.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(3).

Furthermore, there is no requirement for medical, expert testimony to demonstrate the

element of serious physical harm, State v. Laney, 2019-Ohio-2648, ¶ 27 (6th Dist.), and

“Ohio courts hold that even ‘[t]he slightest injury is sufficient proof of physical harm[.]’”

(Citations omitted) State v. Williams, 2023-Ohio-4456, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.) (describing the

9.
“physical harm” necessary for a domestic violence offense). Finally, evidence that

Thompson acted knowingly in committing strangulation may be demonstrated “from all

the surrounding facts and circumstances, including doing the act itself.” State v. Ward,

2026-Ohio-305, ¶ 20 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Hilton, 2015-Ohio-5198, ¶ 20 (12th

Dist.).

{¶ 25} Therefore, construing the evidence most favorably for the State, we find no

merit to Thompson’s argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.

{¶ 26} Thompson next argues that the weight of the evidence did not support his

conviction for strangulation. In support, Thompson argues that his own testimony was

more believable than the differing testimony of A.G. and her daughter because A.G. had

been drinking the day of the incident and A.G.’s daughter’s testimony did not match her

mother’s version of events. Thompson further argues that the testimony of A.G. and her

daughter demonstrated hands on A.G.’s neck for a time too brief to create a substantial

risk of physical harm by strangulation. With due consideration of Thompson’s argument,

we do not find his case to be the “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily

against conviction.” (Citation omitted) Knous v. Bauer, 2023-Ohio-2622, ¶ 36 (6th Dist.).

{¶ 27} First, as to conflicts between A.G.’s testimony and the daughter’s

testimony, Thompson suggests that neither should have been believed because A.G.

testified her back was toward Thompson when he gripped her neck and her daughter

testified that A.G. was face-to-face with Thompson when he squeezed her neck for a

second before letting go. Thompson also disputed whether A.G.’s daughter saw anything,

10.
because he had testified that the bathroom door was closed until after A.G. had already

fallen to the floor, contradicting A.G.’s testimony of an open door. Finally, Thompson

argues that his testimony demonstrated that A.G. had been drinking, in contrast to A.G.’s

testimony that she drank later in the evening, after the incident.

{¶ 28} Thompson highlights the differences in witness testimony, ignores any

corroborating evidence, and argues that his testimony was more credible and therefore the

jury lost its way. While we consider the credibility of witnesses in applying the manifest-

weight standard, the jury’s credibility determinations are entitled to special deference.

State v. Berry, 2024-Ohio-5970, ¶ 27 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Fell, 2012-Ohio-616, ¶ 14

(6th Dist.). “The jurors are free to believe some, all, or none of each witness’ testimony

and they may separate the credible parts of the testimony from the incredible parts.”

Berry at ¶ 27, quoting State v. Hill, 2024-Ohio-2744, ¶ 24 (7th Dist.) (additional citations

omitted.). As in this case, where there are discrepancies and “two conflicting versions of

events, neither of which is unbelievable, we will not choose which one is more credible.”

Berry at ¶ 27, quoting Hill at ¶ 24 (additional citation omitted.). Thus, this is not that

extraordinary case meriting reversal based on a jury that lost its way in determining the

credibility of witness testimony.

{¶ 29} Thompson next argues that the evidence demonstrated such a brief contact

with A.G.’s neck that the evidence of substantial risk of physical harm by strangulation is

not credible. Thompson’s argument of only a “brief strangulation” and little physical

11.
evidence, however, is not persuasive. The testimony of A.G., if believed by the jury,

established the elements of the offense.

{¶ 30} As previously noted, Thompson was convicted of strangulation in violation

of R.C. 2903.18(B)(3), which required proof of strangulation that caused a substantial

risk of physical harm, or “any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment,

regardless of its gravity or duration.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(3). The newly enacted

strangulation law, R.C. 2903.18, elevates certain misdemeanor domestic violence

offenses to a felony offense, where the offense involves allegations of strangulation or

suffocation.2 As argued by the State, the evidence demonstrated more than a risk of

physical harm because A.G.’s testimony demonstrated actual harm, with the “gravity or

duration” of her injury not a factor as defined under R.C. 2901.01(A)(3). Furthermore,

courts have rejected Thompson’s characterization of “brief strangulation,” noting the

lethality of strangulation in domestic violence cases and the possibility of serious injury

and death. See State v. Osborne, 2024-Ohio-2173, ¶ 24, fn 2 (8th Dist.).

{¶ 31} Finally, although the State relied primarily on A.G.’s testimony to

demonstrate a substantial risk of physical harm, with only photographs of A.G.’s bruised

jaw to show actual injury, the lack of additional physical evidence does not require

reversal. “Courts have repeatedly held that a lack of physical evidence, standing alone,

2
See Ohio Legislative Service Commission, S.B. 288 134th General Assembly, “Fiscal
Note & Local Impact Statement” available at
https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/download?key=19959 (accessed April 22, 2026).

12.
does not render a conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence.” State v. Abudu,

2023-Ohio-2294, ¶ 67 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Conner, 2013-Ohio-2773, ¶ 12 (10th

Dist.) (additional citations omitted.). Considering the evidence in this case, we do not

find the jury lost its way in finding Thompson guilty of strangulation as charged.

{¶ 32} Accordingly, we find Thompson’s single assignment of error challenging

both the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence not well-taken.

V. Conclusion

{¶ 33} The judgment of the Fulton County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Thompson is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Gene A. Zmuda, J.
JUDGE

Myron C. Duhart, J.
JUDGE

Charles E. Sulek, J.
CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

13.