Background
Anton Travick was indicted on charges of felonious assault, strangulation, domestic violence, and obstructing official business following an incident involving his live-in girlfriend. At a bench trial, the victim testified that Travick placed both hands around her neck near the kitchen sink, applied his weight, and choked her until she lost consciousness. She testified that he later grabbed her neck in the bathroom, choked her, pushed her head against a wall, and again caused her to lose consciousness. She also said he struck her several times with a broomstick.
The responding officer testified that the victim was very upset, had difficulty speaking, had red marks on the left side of her neck, complained of pain on the right side, and winced in pain around her abdomen. The victim said her voice remained hoarse and eating and swallowing were painful for weeks. Travick denied physically assaulting her. The trial court found him guilty of strangulation and domestic violence, acquitted him of felonious assault and obstructing official business, and imposed concurrent prison terms of 36 and 48 months.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District held that sufficient evidence supported both convictions. Viewed in the prosecution’s favor, the victim’s detailed account— including her testimony that she lost consciousness twice—together with the officer’s observations of her impaired speech, neck marks, pain, and emotional condition permitted a rational factfinder to conclude that Travick knowingly created a substantial risk of serious physical harm by strangulation and knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to a household member.
The court also rejected Travick’s manifest-weight challenge. Although Travick denied any physical involvement and attacked the victim’s credibility, the trial judge was entitled to resolve the conflicting accounts. The officer’s testimony corroborated material aspects of the victim’s account, and the appellate court found neither that the trial court lost its way nor that the convictions produced a manifest miscarriage of justice. It therefore affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Testimony that choking caused unconsciousness, corroborated by neck marks and difficulty speaking, supported the strangulation conviction and its substantial-risk element.
- Domestic violence does not require a visible injury; knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm is sufficient under Ohio law.
- An appellate court generally defers to the trial judge’s credibility determinations and reverses on manifest-weight grounds only in an exceptional case.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between sufficiency and manifest-weight review after a bench trial. Evidence that could persuade a rational factfinder satisfies sufficiency, while conflicting testimony and credibility disputes ordinarily remain for the trial judge.
It also shows that a strangulation prosecution may be sustained through the victim’s account and corroborating observations even without hospitalization or extensive visible injuries.