State v. Vogt

[Cite as State v. Vogt, 2026-Ohio-4421.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2026-03-031 Appellee, : OPINION AND vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 11/9/2026 GREGORY JOHN VOGT, : Appellant. : : CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2024-09-1401 Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Stephen M. Wagner, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Michele Temmel, for appellant. ____________ OPINION SIEBERT, J. {¶ 1} Gregory John Vogt filed this appeal after being convicted of strangulation, abduction, and two counts of domestic violence. Vogt argues his convictions for strangulation and abduction are against the manifest weight of the evidence largely  Butler CA2026-03-031 because the State failed to demonstrate he acted "knowingly" when committing these crimes and did not corroborate the victim's testimony with physical or direct evidence. Vogt's arguments on appeal wholly ignore (1) the victim's testimony, which the trial court believed, was sufficient to sustain his convictions conviction (even though the State also presented various other pieces of evidence) and (2) the trial court, as the trier of fact, was in the best position to weigh the evidence presented at trial and make credibility determinations. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. Background {¶ 2} Vogt and his wife "Jane" were drinking late one evening into the early morning hours when they began fighting. Jane and Vogt gave different narratives as to when, where in the house, and how exactly the parties began fighting. Jane testified that during their fight, Vogt laid on top of her so she could not leave the bedroom they were in and impeded her breathing by covering her nose and mouth with his hands as well as placing his hands around her throat. {¶ 3} At one point, Jane called 911 and put her phone under her pillow. At various points in the recording of the 911 call, Jane's repeated protests as well as her muffled screams, cries, and gasps for air, can be heard. Jane could also be heard saying statements such as "I can't breathe!" and "You put your hand over my nose and my mouth!"1 Vogt can occasionally be heard during the recording, telling Jane in a level voice—which Jane characterized as a "sadistic calm[ness]"—to "shut up and let me talk to you" or to "calm down" as Jane's muffled screams can also be heard. At one point, Jane cried "Please, don't kill me."2 1. Vogt asserts Jane never states in the 911 recording that Greg covered her mouth and nose, but this statement occurs at the 5:25 mark. 2. The State and Vogt contest whether Vogt replied he was or was "not" going to kill Jane at that point. Either way, the statement would not alter the conclusions of this opinion. -2-  Butler CA2026-03-031 {¶ 4} Officer Guy Michael Veeneman of the West Chester Police Department responded to Vogt's home after Jane placed the 911 call. Officer Veeneman testified that before entering the home, he heard a female voice say, "get off of me." The State submitted Officer Veeneman's body camera footage into evidence. In the video, and after police entered the home, Vogt can be seen on camera, and he stated, "[Jane] called 911 because she was afraid." Officer Veeneman spoke with Jane after another officer placed Vogt in handcuffs and in a cruiser. Jane stated on video and via a written statement taken that evening that Vogt threatened to kill her, held her down, and placed his hands over her mouth, nose, and around her throat, impeding her breathing. {¶ 5} Vogt admitted at trial that he put his hands over Jane's mouth but only to keep her from screaming and waking up their daughter. Vogt denied covering Jane's mouth or holding her down. Jane and Vogt both acknowledged they argued constantly and had a tumultuous relationship. In addition, Jane and Vogt both testified to Jane's advanced cirrhosis of the liver stemming from her drinking history. Jane stated this condition gave her "short-term memory and confusion" about things such as where she left her keys but does not cause her to "completely make up events" such as Vogt's actions that night. Vogt testified Jane's heavy drinking frequently made her behavior erratic, violent, and unpredictable. {¶ 6} After the bench trial, the trial court found Vogt guilty of strangulation, abduction, and two counts of domestic violence. The trial court found Jane's testimony credible and consistent with the evidence presented at trial, including the recorded 911 call. On the other hand, the trial court deemed Vogt "a horrible liar." The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 24 months in prison. {¶ 7} Vogt now appeals. -3-  Butler CA2026-03-031 Applicable Law {¶ 8} Strangulation occurs when one "[c]ause[s] or create[s] a substantial risk of physical harm to another by means of strangulation or suffocation." R.C. 2903.18(B)(3). "Strangulation or suffocation" are defined 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). In turn, abduction occurs when one "by force or threat, restrain[s] the liberty of another person under circumstances that create a risk of physical harm to the victim or place the other person in fear." R.C. 2905.02(A)(2). {¶ 9} Both of these offenses must be committed knowingly. See R.C. 2903.18(B); R.C. 2905.02(A). "A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist." R.C. 2901.22(B). "[W]hether a person acts knowingly can . . . be determined from all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the doing of the act itself." State v. Hilton, 2015-Ohio-5198, ¶ 20 (12th Dist.). Standard of Review {¶ 10} "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a conviction, an appellate court examines the evidence to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Madden, 2024-Ohio-2851, ¶ 31. Therefore, "[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 1997-Ohio- 355, ¶ 49, fn. 4. -4-  Butler CA2026-03-031 {¶ 11} "A manifest weight of the evidence challenge examines the 'inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.'" Madden at ¶ 32, quoting State v. Barnett, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.). To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed, and a new trial ordered. State v. Graham, 2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66 (12th Dist.). {¶ 12} Nonetheless, an appellate court must be mindful that the original trier of fact was in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and determine the weight to be given to the evidence. State v. Blankenburg, 2012-Ohio-1289, ¶ 114 (12th Dist.). "An appellate court will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of the evidence 'only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.'" State v. Zitney, 2021-Ohio-466, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Thompkins, 1997-Ohio- 52, ¶ 25; State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1983), paragraph three of syllabus. {¶ 13} "[A]lthough the legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different, '[a] determination that a conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency.'" State v. Billingsley, 2020-Ohio-2673, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). First Assignment of Error - Strangulation {¶ 14} Vogt argues the State did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate he "knowingly" strangled Jane and that his conviction for strangulation was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In support, Vogt notes Jane's admission that Vogt did -5-  Butler CA2026-03-031 not raise his voice and "calmly" asked Jane to be quiet. In addition, Vogt points to his testimony that he only placed his hands over Jane's mouth so she would not wake up their daughter. Vogt asserts "[t]hat does not sound like a person who would knowingly create a substantial risk of harm." {¶ 15} As stated above, however, the trial court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and determine the weight to be given to the evidence. The trial court may have weighed Vogt's "calm," level voice that evening against Jane's testimony that Vogt's calmness was "sadistic." Moreover, Vogt's intention or motivation in strangling or suffocating Jane is irrelevant to prove whether he acted knowingly. See R.C. 2901.22(B) ("A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when . . .") (Emphasis added.) Compare with R.C. 2901.22(A) ("A person acts purposely . . . when the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, [and] regardless of what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is the offender's specific intention to engage in conduct of that nature") (Emphasis added.). The State only needed to prove that Vogt was aware his conduct would "create a substantial risk of" and "probably cause" physical harm. R.C. 2903.18(B)(3); R.C. 2901.22(B). {¶ 16} Vogt also argues "there was no evidence presented to backup [Jane's] claim" of strangulation such as bruising on her throat, nose, or mouth or evidence of medical treatment and documentation. But Vogt's argument ignores the evidence actually presented at trial to demonstrate Vogt inhibited Jane's breathing, including Jane's testimony, her written and verbal statements to Officer Veeneman, and, most damningly, her muffled screams and cries followed by gasps for air on the 911 call recording. Ultimately, the evidence presented at trial gave the trial court ample room to conclude Vogt knowingly caused or created a substantial risk of physical harm to Jane by means of strangulation or suffocation. -6-  Butler CA2026-03-031 {¶ 17} We overrule Vogt's first assignment of error. Second Assignment of Error – Abduction {¶ 18} Vogt similarly argues the state failed to present sufficient evidence that he knowingly abducted Jane and that this conviction was also against the manifest weight of the evidence. In summary, Vogt cites only to his own testimony that he restrained Jane or prevented her from leaving the room while ironically bemoaning there was no evidence to "substantiate" Jane's testimony and statements to the contrary. He further contends Officer Veeneman's testimony that he heard Jane say "get off me" before he entered the home does not mean Vogt was preventing her from leaving the room. Vogt concludes that his "calmness and quietness [that evening] were genuine" whereas Jane "was performing for 911." {¶ 19} These arguments simply recycle the unsuccessful ones made in his first assignment of error. Again, the trial court obviously did not agree with Vogt's characterization of his and Jane's confrontation and concluded Jane was far more credible. The trial court even went so far as to deem Vogt a "horrible liar." From this credibility determination alone, the trial court could have found Vogt guilty. State v. Cook, 2023-Ohio-256, ¶ 31 (12th Dist.). Stated differently, corroborating evidence was not required to find Vogt guilty of abduction. Id. Each piece of evidence presented at trial, including Jane's testimony, Officer Veeneman's testimony and body camera footage, and the 911 call, had the same probative value as the types of evidence Vogt argues should have been presented. State v. Lee, 2021-Ohio-2544, ¶ 25 (12th Dist.) (holding direct and circumstantial evidence "have the same probative value"). {¶ 20} We overrule Vogt's second assignment of error. Conclusion {¶ 21} Vogt contends it is "evident[ ] [he] and [Jane] were drunk and fighting as -7-  Butler CA2026-03-031 usual" and asks this court to consider why Vogt would "be aware that the fight on this particular evening would create a risk of harm [and accusations of abduction] when fighting was an integral part of their relationship?" This argument lets the proverbial cat out of the bag. Given their admitted history of conflict and multiple sources of damaging evidence, the record makes clear that Vogt's convictions for strangulation and abduction were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The only results Vogt may not have known his actions that evening would cause were that Jane's accusations would be taken up by the State, believed by the trial court, and result in his conviction and incarceration. {¶ 22} Judgment affirmed. HENDRICKSON, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur. -8-  Butler CA2026-03-031 JUDGMENT ENTRY The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Butler County Court of Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24. /s/ Robert A. Hendrickson, Presiding Judge /s/ Robin N. Piper, Judge /s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge -9-