Ms. Anderson’s crime was her obstruction of the fire department personnel, which occurred prior to her interaction with the police. Ms. Anderson obstructed official business when she threatened Chief Ketzell and ordered him to stay away from the property. Ms. Anderson’s threats and demeanor prevented Chief Ketzell from doing his job. No other action taken by Ms. Anderson was necessary to complete the commission of the crime.
State v. Anderson
2024 – Ohio – 5189
Seventh District Appellate Court
Belmont County, Ohio
October 25, 2024
Factual and Legal Background
Jasmine A. Anderson argues that her conviction for obstruction of official business was against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. The record shows that Ms. Anderson interfered with the Village of Brookside Fire Department in putting out a fire in front of her home. She was on the porch of the house while the fire raged out of control in front of it. She ordered the fire chief to get off of the property and threatened to kill him. When police arrived, Ms. Anderson entered the house, barricaded one door, and went into the attic. The police eventually found her and arrested her in the attic. The record contains ample evidence that Ms. Anderson interfered with both the fire department and with the police in carrying out their duties. Ms. Anderson’s assignment of error is without merit, and her conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Ms. Anderson Threatens to Kill Firefighters for Extinguishing Fire on Her Property
On September 14, 2023, Ms. Anderson was arrested and charged in Belmont County Court, Eastern Division, with two misdemeanor counts: obstruction of official business and menacing. The charges resulted from Ms. Anderson’s actions while police and firefighters were responding to a fire on the hillside in front of Ms. Anderson’s home at 14 Elm Street in the Village of Brookside.
Ms. Anderson’s home at 14 Elm Street in the Village of Brookside. There was a working fire in the front yard and Ms. Anderson threatened to kill the firefighters for extinguishing the fire.
The fire was out of control, reaching fifteen to twenty feet high, and was extending to the telephone and electric lines in the area. When Allan Ketzell, Fire Chief of Brookside Fire Department, approached Ms. Anderson’s home, Ms. Anderson yelled threats from her porch to Chief Ketzell and told him not to come near her house. These included: “Get the F off my property. I will kill you if you don’t.” Chief Ketzell identified Ms. Anderson as the person threatening him and telling him to stay off of the property. Ms. Anderson’s father was also on the scene, trying to put out Chief Ketzell was being threatened, preventing him from putting out the fire and getting Ms. Anderson to a safe location, he called for police assistance.
Law Enforcement Arrives and Discovers Ms. Anderson has Outstanding Warrants
When police arrived on the scene, they discovered that Ms. Anderson had outstanding warrants. They saw Ms. Anderson run into the house, and ordered her to exit the house, telling her she was under arrest on the outstanding warrants. Police did not immediately enter the house because they were concerned about being attacked by Ms. Anderson’s dogs. They also were aware that they did not have primary jurisdiction over the matter, and were waiting for the county sheriff to arrive.
Anderson Unsuccessfully hid in the Attic
By the time the sheriff’s deputies arrived, Ms. Anderson had barricaded one of the doors. Sergeant Mike Sabol of the sheriff’s department took charge of the scene. Sergeant Sabol was able to get confirmation that Ms. Anderson barricaded herself in the house and that she was subject to multiple open warrants. As the police had surrounded the house, and Ms. Anderson’s father was outside and was not cooperating with the investigation, Sgt. Sabol and his men proceeded to search the house room by room, finding Ms. Anderson in the attic. Sabol placed her under arrest.
Ms. Anderson was charged with Obstructing Official Business.
Menacing Charged was Dropped and Ms. Anderson was Convicted of Obstructing Official Business
The case proceeded to jury trial on February 12, 2024. The state dismissed the menacing charge at the start of the trial. The state called the Brookside fire chief, two Bridgeport police officers, and Sergeant Sabol of the sheriff’s department as witnesses. Ms. Anderson called Gwendolyn Stewart, her sister, as a witness. The jury convicted Ms. Anderson of obstructing official business, O.R.C. §2921.31(A), second degree misdemeanor. Sentencing took place on February 22, 2024. The court sentenced Ms. Anderson to 90 days in jail and court costs, with credit for 10 days. The sentencing entry and the notice of appeal was filed on February 27, 2024. A nunc pro tunc sentencing entry was filed on March 25, 2024.
What is Obstructing Official Business
Anderson was convicted of Obstructing Official Business pursuant to O.R.C. §2921.31(A), which provides: “(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.” The essential elements of this crime are: “(1) an act by the defendant, (2) done with the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay a public official, (3) that actually hampers or impedes a public official, (4) while the official is acting in the performance of a lawful duty, and (5) the defendant so acts without privilege.”
Words alone may constitute obstruction of official business. “The proper focus in a prosecution for obstructing official business is on the defendant’s conduct, verbal or physical, and its effect on the public official’s ability to perform the official’s lawful duties.” State v. Wellman, 2007-Ohio-2953.
Did Law Enforcement have to Intervene Prior to the Fire Being Extinguished?
Anderson’s argument focuses mainly on the actions of the police after she threatened Fire Chief Ketzell. It is clear from the record, though, that the crime in this case was obstructing the fire department from its duties, and this crime had already occurred by the time the police arrived. Ms. Anderson appears to be arguing that a second act of obstruction did not occur, because she did not block the entry of the police into her home after they arrived. The state need not provide proof of a second act of obstruction. Ms. Anderson’s interaction with the police served to bolster the evidence regarding her interference with firefighters’ attempts to put out the fire. After Ms. Anderson threatened Chief Ketzell, it became necessary for police to confront or apprehend Ms. Anderson in order to alleviate the threat. Evidence shows Ms. Anderson left the porch and entered the house, barricaded one of the doors, and fled to the attic of the house. Needlessly stalling or dragging out an investigation can serve as sufficient action to qualify as obstruction of official business. State v. Woodley, 2024-Ohio-2538, ¶ 14 (7th Dist.). The moments that were lost by Ms. Anderson’s lack of cooperation and delay were moments that could have been used to get the fire under control.
Anderson Feebly Raises the Transgender Defense
Anderson contends that her actions in response to the police presence were reasonable, given that she is a transgender person. There are two main problems with this argument. First, it does not appear from the record that her status as a transgender person ever arose during her encounter with the police. The second, and more important reason, is that Ms. Anderson’s crime was her obstruction of the fire department personnel, which occurred prior to her interaction with the police. Ms. Anderson obstructed official business when she threatened Chief Ketzell and ordered him to stay away from the property. Ms. Anderson’s threats and demeanor prevented Chief Ketzell from doing his job. No other action taken by Ms. Anderson was necessary to complete the commission of the crime. Chief Ketzell was lawfully at the scene to put out a fire that was out of control, located between Ms. Anderson’s house and the next. Chief Ketzell testified that he could not do that after he was threatened by Ms. Anderson, causing him to call for police assistance. These actions have nothing to do with Ms. Anderson’s later interaction with the police, or with her status as a transgender person. The elements of the crime are supported by sufficient evidence completely unrelated to Ms. Anderson’s status.
The jury was free to believe the testimony that Ms. Anderson fled into the house when police arrived, barricaded a door, and then hid in the attic.
The same facts show that the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury was free to believe Chief Ketzell’s testimony that Ms. Anderson threatened him, and that he was prevented from performing his job due to her The jury was free to believe the testimony that Ms. Anderson fled into the house when police arrived, barricaded a door, and then hid in the attic. No one questions that there was an unattended fire on the property that had grown out of control. There is no question that both Chief Ketzell and the law enforcement officers were performing lawful duties. The jury had ample evidence to choose from to determine that Ms. Anderson committed the crime, and the jury verdict is fully supported by the record.
Conclusion and Holding
There is no support in the record for Ms. Anderson’s arguments regarding the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. Ms. Anderson’s sole assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Anderson challenges her conviction for obstruction of official business on the basis of the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. The record reveals Ms. Anderson interfered with the Village of Brookside Fire Department in putting out a fire very near her home. She threatened the fire chief and caused the fire department delay in putting out a dangerous fire. The record contains ample evidence of interference with both the fire department and law enforcement officers in carrying out their duties. Ms. Anderson’s assignment of error is without merit. Her conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Anderson, 2024 – Ohio – 5189.
State v. Anderson, 2024 – Ohio – 5189 was issued on October 25, 2024 by the Seventh District Appellate Court and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Harrison, Jefferson, Mahoning, Monroe and Noble.
Lessons Learned:
- What are the elements of Obstructing Official Business? To successfully charge and convict a person for Obstructing Official Business R.C. §2921.31(A), each element of the statute must be met: “(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.”. In this case Ms. Anderson did not have a privilege. A privilege means that she was authorized to inhibit the fire department from extinguishing the fire and of course Ms. Anderson was not privileged. The remainder of the violations by Ms. Anderson are self-evident. Brookside Fire Department Fire Chief Ketzell was performing his official duties to lead BFD to extinguish the fire and Ms. Anderson impeded this lawful act by threatening to kill the firefighters.
- Is Delaying a Public Official Lawful Duties Rise to the Level of Obstructing Official Business? Eventually BFD did extinguish the fire so Ms. Anderson’s verbal threats to kill the firefighters only delayed the eventual fire suppression. However, many courts have held that a delay in response by first responders is enough to sustain a conviction for Obstructing Official Business. Here, the Seventh District Appellate Court identified a 2024 case; “Needlessly stalling or dragging out an investigation can serve as sufficient action to qualify as obstruction of official business.” State v. Woodley, 2024-Ohio-2538, ¶ 14 (7th Dist.).
- Transgender Defense – Ms. Anderson raised a unique criminal defense that her actions were reasonable because she is transgender; “ Anderson contends that her actions in response to the police presence were reasonable, given that she is a transgender person.” The sex of a person whether the birth sex, sought after sex or changed-into sex has no lawful basis to threaten to kill a first responder in the performance of their duties.
- Pre-Sent Arms! The documentation and testimony by the two Bridgeport Police Officers and Belmont County Sgt. Sabol were instrumental in Ms. Anderson’s conviction. Well done!
Does your agency train on Obstructing Official Business?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!