Background
In March 2025, Carreyon Dukes, then 19 years old, and two co-defendants — Jordan Worthey-Sturdivant and Demonte Williams — were inmates at the Indian River Juvenile Correctional Facility in Massillon, Ohio. Video surveillance captured Dukes approaching 17-year-old inmate A.M. without provocation, placing him in a chokehold, and throwing him to the ground. The co-defendants then joined in hitting and kicking A.M. for approximately one minute. After a brief pause when staff briefly entered and then left the room, the attackers delivered additional blows, culminating in Sturdivant — assisted by Dukes — lifting A.M. and throwing him headfirst onto the floor.
A.M. suffered a laceration to the back of his head and was treated at a hospital. All three co-defendants were indicted for felonious assault. At a joint jury trial, Dukes and Sturdivant were found guilty, but Williams was acquitted. The trial court limited the presentation of certain medical evidence during the trial. Dukes appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on the “serious physical harm” element, the exclusion of medical evidence, and arguing the inconsistent verdicts entitled him to a new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed the conviction on all grounds. On the sufficiency challenge, the court found that the video surveillance footage — showing A.M. being thrown headfirst onto the floor, lying motionless afterward, and bleeding from a head laceration — was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that A.M. suffered “serious physical harm” as defined by R.C. 2901.01(A)(5). The court did not need to rely exclusively on medical testimony; the observable injuries and A.M.’s incapacitation were enough.
On the inconsistent-verdicts claim, the court applied the well-established principle under State v. Gardner that “inconsistency in a verdict does not arise out of the jury’s determination of the guilt or innocence of co-defendants.” Each defendant’s culpability is evaluated independently, and a jury may rationally find one co-defendant guilty while acquitting another based on its assessment of each defendant’s role. The trial court did not err in denying Dukes’ motion for a new trial on this basis.
Key Takeaways
- Under Ohio law, inconsistent verdicts between co-defendants tried jointly do not invalidate a guilty verdict; each defendant’s culpability is assessed independently by the jury.
- Video surveillance evidence alone can be sufficient to establish “serious physical harm” under R.C. 2901.01(A)(5), even without detailed medical testimony.
- A trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of medical records are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be reversed absent a showing of prejudice.
Why It Matters
This opinion provides useful guidance for Ohio criminal practitioners on two important issues. First, it reinforces that inconsistent verdicts among co-defendants are not grounds for a new trial — a principle that applies regardless of how seemingly inconsistent the jury’s assessments may appear. Second, the decision illustrates that video evidence of a violent attack can independently establish the “serious physical harm” element of felonious assault, reducing the prosecution’s dependence on medical expert testimony. Defense counsel challenging sufficiency in assault cases must account for the weight that juries and appellate courts will give to surveillance footage.