State v. Bickerstaff

[Cite as State v. Bickerstaff, 2026-Ohio-1358.]


                         IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
                                 RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO



  STATE OF OHIO                                         Case No. 2025-CA-0056

         Plaintiff - Appellee                           Opinion And Judgment Entry

  -vs-                                                  Appeal from the Richland County Court
                                                        of Common Pleas, Case No. 2024 CR
  TERRY L. BICKERSTAFF                                  0220N

         Defendant - Appellant                          Judgment: Affirmed

                                                        Date of Judgment Entry:April 13, 2026



BEFORE: Andrew J. King, Kevin W. Popham, and David M. Gormley, Judges

APPEARANCES: Michelle Fink, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Randall E. Fry, for Defendant-
Appellant

                                                  OPINION

Popham, J.,

         {¶1}    Defendant-appellant Terry L. Bickerstaff appeals his assault conviction

following a jury trial in Richland County. Bickerstaff argues that his conviction is not

supported by sufficient evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Bickerstaff’s

conviction.

                                           Facts & Procedural History

         {¶2}    In February 2023, Bickerstaff was incarcerated at Mansfield Correctional

Institution after being convicted of aggravated murder in 2011.

         {¶3}    On February 5, 2023, an incident occurred while Bickerstaff was in a

segregation unit recreation cell. The victim, who is a corrections officer identified as J.N.,
along with Bickerstaff and another corrections officer on duty the day of the incident,

testified at trial.

        {¶4}    J.N. testified that, on February 5, 2023, she was working as a corrections

officer at the Mansfield Correctional Institution. J.N. observed Bickerstaff standing in

the center of the recreation cell attempting to speak, but she could not hear him due to

surrounding noise. J.N. and Bickerstaff were separated by iron bars. She asked him to

come closer. According to J.N., Bickerstaff then punched her in the face through the bars

with a closed fist. She reacted angrily, used an expletive, and immediately left the area,

allowing a coworker/coworkers to take over.

        {¶5}    J.N. testified that she did not initially feel pain in her head or neck, but

noticed a mark on her face and redness around her eye. She went to the institution’s clinic

but does not recall the details of that visit due to her emotional state. After the adrenaline

subsided, she began experiencing head and neck pain. She later saw a chiropractor, who

recommended she take three weeks off work to recover. Her employer granted this leave

as “Occupational Injury Leave,” which is provided to corrections officers injured by

inmates.

        {¶6}    J.N. acknowledged that, immediately after the incident, she told coworker/

coworkers she was not hurt. At trial, she explained that she did, in fact, feel pain, but did

not report it at the time because of the adrenaline rush she was experiencing and because

she felt she could not show weakness as a female corrections officer.

        {¶7}    Kyle Voorhies, a corrections officer working on the unit with J.N. on

February 5, 2023, did not witness the incident, but immediately rushed to the area when

he heard a commotion. He observed J.N. crying and visibly upset, but he did not notice

any visible injuries on J.N.
       {¶8}   Bickerstaff testified that he became upset when J.N. told him his recreation

time was over. He admitted reaching through the bars and “swinging” at J.N., but denied

making any physical contact with J.N. Bickerstaff testified that he was just “trying to

scare” J.N. and “wanted to make her flinch.”

       {¶9}   Bickerstaff was indicted on one count of assault in connection with the

incident. Pursuant to R.C. 2903.13(C)(3), assault is charged as a third-degree felony if:

(1) the offense occurred in or on the grounds of a state correctional institution; (2) the

victim of the offense was an employee of the department of rehabilitation and correction;

and (3) the offense was committed by a person incarcerated in the state correctional

institution. A jury convicted Bickerstaff of third-degree felony assault.

       {¶10} Bickerstaff appeals his assault conviction and assigns the following as error:

       {¶11} “I. THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER

OF LAW TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION OF THE CHARGE IN THE INDICTMENT AND,

AS A RESULT, THE APPELLANT’S RIGHTS AS PROTECTED BY ARTICLE I, SECTION

SIXTEEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE 5TH AMENDMENT OF THE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WERE VIOLATED.”

                                      Standard of Review

       {¶12} In his assignment of error, Bickerstaff argues that the State failed to present

sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We disagree.

       {¶13} “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court does not

ask whether the evidence should be believed but, rather, whether the evidence, ‘if

believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt.’” State v. Pountney, 2018-Ohio-22, ¶ 19, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259

(1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. “The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the
evidence in the 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. Howell, 2020-Ohio-174, ¶ 28 (5th Dist.), quoting Jenks at paragraph two of the

syllabus.   “The verdict will not be disturbed unless the appellate court finds that

reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier-of-fact.” State v.

Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 430 (1997).

                                    Physical Harm or Injury

       {¶14} Bickerstaff contends his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence

because the State failed to establish that he caused the victim physical harm.

       {¶15} Bickerstaff’s argument focuses on whether there was any actual physical

harm suffered by J.N. This argument overlooks the plain language of R.C. 2903.13(A).

“R.C. 2093.13(A) does not require that a defendant cause physical harm; it also prohibits

individuals from attempting to cause physical harm to another.” State v. Buchar, 2017-

Ohio-7601, ¶ 23 (5th Dist.); State v. Belcher, 2013-Ohio-1234, ¶ 57 (2nd Dist.) (testimony

of victim that defendant attempted to hit her and swung at her satisfies requirements for

assault conviction). The State did not need to prove that J.N. was actually injured, only

that Bickerstaff attempted to cause physical harm. Id.

       {¶16} An attempt to hit an officer demonstrates an attempt to cause physical

harm. Bickerstaff admitted that he reached through the bars and “swung” at J.N, who

testified that Bickerstaff “punched her in the face” with a closed fist through the bars. The

bodycam footage also supports the testimony that Bickerstaff made a swinging motion at

J.N. The video also demonstrates that J.N.’s immediate response to the swing by

appellant was her exclamation that “he punched me in the face.”
       {¶17} Additionally, the phrase “physical harm to persons” is broadly defined

under R.C. 2901.01(A)(3) as “any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment,

regardless of its gravity or duration.” “The qualification of the physical contact as

‘physical harm’ is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact.” In re G.K., 2022-Ohio-

2124, ¶ 19 (5th Dist.). “The slightest injury is enough proof of physical harm.” State v.

Bailey, 2023-Ohio-1267, ¶ 20 (5th Dist.).

       {¶18} Here, J.N. testified that she sustained a mark on her face and redness

around her eye. She also testified that she experienced head and neck pain after the

incident once the adrenaline subsided. She also explained that she did not immediately

tell her co-workers that she was hurt because: (1) she had an adrenaline rush and (2) as a

female corrections officer, she cannot show weakness to the inmates or her co-workers.

       {¶19} “[T]he testimony of one witness, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to

support a conviction.”    State v. Williams, 2017-Ohio-803, ¶ 54 (5th Dist.).       J.N.’s

testimony that she suffered a mark on her face and redness around her eyes and her

testimony that, once the adrenaline wore off, she experienced head and neck pain, was

sufficient to establish that she suffered physical harm.

       {¶20} We find that the State presented sufficient evidence to support a guilty

verdict on the assault charge. Bickerstaff’s assignment of error is overruled.
      For the reasons stated in our Opinion, the judgment of the Richland County Court

of Common Pleas is affirmed.

      Costs to Appellant Terry L. Bickerstaff.


By: Popham, J.

King, P.J. and

Gormley, J., concur