Mr. Yelton was found inside the very small apartment a mere 25 minutes later. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to show Mr. Yelton had been in the apartment the entire time.
The apartment was small but the suspect’s mistakes were not, even if “[N]obody wants nobody to get arrested.”
State v. Caudill
Third District Appellate Court
March 10, 2025
Background
On February 16, 2023, in trial court case number 23-CR-56, the Shelby County grand jury indicted Ms. Jacqueline Caudill on a single count of obstructing justice, in violation of O.R.C. §2921.32(A)(1), a fifth-degree felony. This count arose from an incident that occurred on January 26, 2023. Then, on March 2, 2023, in trial court case number 23-CR-59, the Shelby County grand jury indicted Ms. Caudill on four additional counts arising from separate incidents: (a) intimidation of a witness in a criminal case, in violation of O.R.C. §2921.04(B)(1), a third-degree felony; (b) obstructing justice, in violation of O.R.C. §2921.32(A)(6), a third-degree felony; (c) assault, in violation of O.R.C. §2903.13(A)(5), a fourth-degree felony; and (d) resisting arrest, in violation of O.R.C. §2921.33(A), a second-degree misdemeanor.
On May 14-15, 2024, the case proceeded to a jury trial on those three counts: (1) obstructing justice from case number 23-CR-56; (2) assault on a police officer and (3) resisting arrest both from case number 23-CR-59. The assault and resisting arrest charges arose together from a separate, but related, incident from the obstructing justice charge. Both incidents were captured on multiple law enforcement body cameras, and video clips from those cameras were played for the jury and admitted into evidence at the trial. At the time of the incidents, Ms. Caudill was the fiancé of Mr. Joseph Yelton.
Obstructing Justice Charge
January 26, 2023
The obstructing justice charge arose from an interaction between Ms. Caudill and law enforcement on January 26, 2023 at Mr. Yelton’s mother’s residence at 104 Brooklyn Avenue, Sidney, Ohio. The residence was one of three apartments in a one-level apartment building. It was a very small apartment, with two bedrooms, two exterior doors (front and back), and only three interior doors. That evening, law enforcement officers arrived to serve Mr. Yelton with an arrest warrant. While one officer was stationed at the rear of the apartment in case someone tried to exit, three other officers approached the front door.
This incident occurred at 104 Brooklyn Avenue, Sidney, Ohio that is the unit on the far right.
Ms. Caudill Denies that Mr. Yelton is Inside the Apartment
At 7:42 p.m., Ms. Caudill opened the front door in response to knocking by an officer. Upon being asked if Mr. Yelton was at the house, Ms. Caudill responded “no.”. The officer explained to Ms. Caudill that the truck Mr. Yelton sometimes drove was parked in front of the apartment and they were there to serve Mr. Yelton with “paperwork.” Ms. Caudill engaged the officers in conversation for a few minutes, during which she asked if they were going to arrest Mr. Yelton. The officer responded that, if the paperwork was an arrest warrant then absolutely they would, to which Ms. Caudill replied: “Well, that’s not gonna f****** happen.”. Ms. Caudill subsequently told the officers multiple times that Mr. Yelton was not at the apartment. When directly asked where Mr. Yelton was, Ms. Caudill responded that she did not know. During the conversation, Ms. Caudill indicated that she either knew or highly suspected that the officers were there to arrest Mr. Yelton. For example, she specifically asked one officer, “What’s the f****** arrest for, Martin?” to which that officer responded, “It’s more charges for what you are already aware of.”.
Officers Surveil the Apartment
After Ms. Caudill closed the door on them, the officers still believed Mr. Yelton was actually in the apartment, so they stayed in the area to surveil. Two of the officers went to an unmarked police vehicle on the street, between the apartment and a nearby Marathon gas station. One officer testified that the apartment was so close to that gas station that you could see the entire front of it from the gas station. According to one of the surveilling officers, they watched the front of the apartment and never saw anyone walking up or down the street or Mr. Yelton entering the apartment. A third officer, who also was conducting surveillance, parked on the same street for a short period and drove up and down the street, before departing. That officer likewise never saw anyone walking in the area.
EMS is Called to the Apartment
Only 21 minutes after Ms. Caudill had closed the door on the officers, paramedics received a call to come to the apartment because Mr. Yelton’s mother was having trouble breathing. Paramedics arrived at 8:18 p.m. and entered the residence. One paramedic at the scene testified that Mr. Yelton emerged from a bedroom within the apartment. Mr. Yelton was arrested in the living room shortly thereafter. At trial, another body-camera video was played that depicted a portion of this scene.
Mr. Yelton admitted he has brain damage and that the marijuana cigar may have made it difficult for him to remember what happened during this time.
At trial, Mr. Yelton testified he was at his mother’s house that day and came there with Ms. Caudill in the truck, but he could not recall when they had arrived. According to Mr. Yelton, at one point he left to smoke a marijuana cigar and walk down the street, but he again could not recall what time that happened. Mr. Yelton admitted he has brain damage and that the marijuana cigar may have made it difficult for him to remember what happened during this time. Mr. Yelton also testified that, when he left to smoke, he went out the front door, walked around the parking lot in front of the apartment while smoking, walked down the street to the Marathon gas station, and—after finishing the cigar—walked back to the apartment and went in its front door. Mr. Yelton said that he then fell asleep in one of the two bedrooms, and he woke up to a siren and paramedics in the residence. The police soon arrived and arrested him.
Mr. Yelton’s mother testified that she did not actually see Mr. Yelton leave the residence that evening, but, when the officers first arrived, it had been “awhile” since she had seen him. She thought he had left out the back door, but could not say for certain.
[N]obody wants nobody to get arrested
Finally, Ms. Caudill testified she and Mr. Yelton had arrived at the apartment together that day. She said that Mr. Yelton left, but admitted she did not know if she actually saw him leave or not. According to Ms. Caudill, she knew that Mr. Yelton had left to smoke and claimed that he was not present because she had looked around the residence—although she did not check in one of the two bedrooms. Ms. Caudill acknowledged that Mr. Yelton testified he had returned to the residence through the front door and that she was sitting in the living room—the very room into which the front door opens. However, according to Ms. Caudill, she did not see Mr. Yelton until he emerged from one of the two bedrooms when the paramedics arrived. She admitted she “didn’t want law enforcement to arrest” Mr. Yelton, adding that “[N]obody wants nobody to get arrested.”.
Assault on a Police Officer
February 24, 2023
The assault on a police officer and resisting arrest charges arose from an interaction between Ms. Caudill and law enforcement on February 24, 2023, while law enforcement officers were in the process of searching her house pursuant to a search warrant. Video from an officer’s body camera showed Ms. Caudill arriving at her house during the search. She proceeded to have a conversation with Sidney Police Department officer Sean Martin (“Officer Martin”), during which Officer Martin told Ms. Caudill to give the officers her cell phone. Ms. Caudill responded with a refusal; Officer Martin told her, “Well, then I am going to arrest you and take your cell phone”; Ms. Caudill retorted, “Oh really?”; and Officer Martin told her, “Yes.”. Ms. Caudill then pulled a cell phone out of her pocket and started touching it, put it back in her pocket, and told Officer Martin, “I can f****** do whatever I want with my G** d*** phone.”. Ms. Caudill took the phone out of her pocket and threw it at Officer Martin’s head. Officer Martin testified the phone was heading toward his face when he blocked it with his arm. At the time, Ms. Caudill was only about four feet from Officer Martin. Another officer, who was standing just a few feet away at the time, corroborated Officer Martin’s testimony that the phone would have hit him in his face.
Ms. Caudill is Arrested During a Profanity – Laced Harangue
Immediately after Ms. Caudill threw the cell phone at Officer Martin, she pushed an approaching officer, who was informing Ms. Caudill that she was being arrested. Ms. Caudill responded, “No, I’m not. Get the f*** off me you piece of s***.”. After warning the struggling Ms. Caudill—who kicked that officer—that she could get stunned, Ms. Caudill replied: “I don’t give a f***. If you f****** stun me, dude, I am gonna f****** kick in your mouth.”. Ultimately, Ms. Caudill was subdued.
Body Camera Refutes Ms. Caudill’s Testimony
At trial, Ms. Caudill testified that she had taken her phone out of her pocket in order to call her father, the officers came at her and were grabbing her, so she threw her phone. Although she admitted she threw the cell phone with force, she testified that she did not intend to hit anyone. She also testified that she did not hear an officer tell her that she was under arrest, despite the body-camera video capturing that statement and her responding to it. She admitted on cross-examination that the video shows she was on the ground kicking and that she screamed and kicked one of the officers while he was arresting her. For his part, Mr. Yelton testified that he was in the back of the police cruiser when this incident happened and witnessed it. He testified that Ms. Caudill “thr[e]w her phone up in the air” and it did not hit anyone.
Guilty and Five Years of Community Control
The jury found Ms. Caudill guilty on all three counts. On June 26, 2024, the trial court sentenced Ms. Caudill to five years of community control as to each count. This appeal followed.
Appeal
Obstructing justice
First, concerning the obstructing justice offense, Ms. Caudill argues “there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Ms. Ms. Caudill truthfully told the officers that Mr. Yelton had left the residence and she did not know his whereabouts at the time.”. She points to her own testimony that Mr. Yelton had left the residence to smoke, as well as Mr. Yelton’s corroborating testimony that he had gone outside to smoke marijuana and walk down the street.
Obstructing Justice – O.R.C. §2921.32
The obstructing justice statute provides, in relevant part, that “[N]o person, with purpose to hinder the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for crime . . . shall . . . [h]arbor or conceal the other person.” O.R.C. §2921.32(A)(1). We have explained that “the true heart of obstructing justice pursuant to [R.C.] 2921.32(A)(1) is the defendant’s intent to hinder the apprehension or discovery, etc. of a person believed to have committed a crime.” State v. Blanton, 2015-Ohio-4620, ¶ 33 (3d Dist.). There is no requirement that the defendant’s conduct actually hinder the police, and—unlike subdivision (A)(5) of the statute—there is no requirement that the defendant make a misstatement or false statement. Id. at ¶ 32-33; O.R.C. §2921.32(A)(5).
Mens Rea – Purposely
As a result, intent can be proven by the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.
With respect to the offense’s state-of-mind requirement, “[A] person acts purposely when it is the person’s specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is the offender’s specific intention to engage in conduct of that nature.” O.R.C. §2901.22(A). Intent lies within the privacy of a person’s own thoughts. Blanton at ¶ 30 (affirming obstructing justice conviction). “It is difficult to prove a person’s subjective mental state through direct evidence.” State v. Baughman, 2010-Ohio-1259, ¶ 33 (3d Dist.). “As a result, intent can be proven by the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.” Blanton at ¶ 30; see also Baughman at ¶ 33.
We find the evidence presented … Ms. Caudill concealed Mr. Yelton with purpose to hinder his discovery or apprehension for crime.
We find the evidence presented, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would allow a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt—specifically, that Ms. Caudill concealed Mr. Yelton with purpose to hinder his discovery or apprehension for crime. After learning the police were there to arrest Mr. Yelton, Ms. Caudill told the officers she had arrived and been with him at the apartment but denied multiple times that Mr. Yelton was there; Ms. Caudill never mentioned to the police that Mr. Yelton had left the apartment to smoke, as she claimed at trial; and, multiple police officers testified they surveilled the apartment and surrounding area from the time they spoke with Ms. Caudill until Mr. Yelton was found inside the very small apartment a mere 25 minutes later. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to show Mr. Yelton had been in the apartment the entire time and to reasonably infer from the surrounding facts and circumstances that Ms. Caudill knew that.
Appeal
Assault on a police officer
Turning to the assault-on-a-police-officer offense, Ms. Caudill attacks the state-of-mind element. She specifically says “the jury clearly lost its way in finding that Ms. Ms. Caudill knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to a police officer.”. She relies on testimony from Mr. Yelton, who witnessed the incident from the back of a police vehicle.
Criminal assault occurs when a person knowingly causes, or attempts to cause, physical harm to another. O.R.C. §2903.13(A). The assault is a fourth-degree felony when the victim is a police officer. O.R.C. §2903.13(C)(5)(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.” O.R.C. §2901.22(B). The term “physical harm” means “any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” O.R.C. §2901.01(A)(3).
[W]e conclude that the evidence was more than sufficient to prove Ms. Caudill acted knowingly
After examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that the evidence was more than sufficient to prove Ms. Caudill acted knowingly. The body-camera video showed that Officer Martin told Ms. Caudill she was going to have to give the officers her cell phone, she refused and pulled her cell phone out of her pocket, wound up with officers approaching her, and threw the phone with force at Officer Martin’s face from only a few feet away— only striking him in the arm instead of the face because he was able to deflect it.
Established Case Law – Assault on a PO
Body-camera videos and officer testimony demonstrate Ms. Caudill knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to a police officer when she threw her cell phone—overhand with force—at Officer Martin and struck him. See State v. Browne, 2024-Ohio-5758, ¶ 13-18 (3d Dist.) (evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of assault on a police officer where the defendant shouted obscenities, closed his fist, and flailed his arms, striking the officer).
Appeal
Resisting arrest
Finally, regarding the resisting-arrest offense, Ms. Caudill once again attacks the state-of-mind element. She contends “there was substantial evidence negating the notion that Ms. Ms. Caudill either recklessly or forcibly interfered with her own arrest.”.
The statute for resisting arrest provides that “[N]o person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another.” O.R.C. §2921.33(A). “A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person’s conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature.” O.R.C. §2901.22(C). The term “‘force’ means any violence, compulsion, or constraint physically exerted by any means upon or against a person or thing.” O.R.C. §2901.01(A)(1); see also State v. Pierce, 2017-Ohio-4223, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.) (finding sufficient evidence that defendant employed force against the police). An arrest is lawful if the surrounding circumstances would give a reasonable police officer cause to believe that an offense has been or is being committed. Pierce at ¶ 21.
[W]e conclude that the evidence was more than sufficient to prove Ms. Caudill acted either recklessly or by force in resisting or interfering with her arrest.
After examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that the evidence was more than sufficient to prove Ms. Caudill acted either recklessly or by force in resisting or interfering with her arrest. The body-camera footage admitted into evidence at trial showed that, immediately after Ms. Caudill had thrown her cell phone at Officer Martin, she pushed an approaching officer who was informing her that she was being arrested. Ms. Caudill also kicked that officer in the ensuing struggle.
Ms. Caudill’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Note: Ms. Caudill had a third appeal that the prosecution used improper comments in the opening and closing arguments. That appeal was also overruled but is not evaluated in this article.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Caudill, 2025 – Ohio – 787.
State v. Caudill, 2025 – Ohio – 787 was issued by the Third District Appellate Court on March 10, 2025 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Allen, Auglaize, Crawford, Defiance, Hancock, Hardin, Henry, Logan, Marion, Mercer, Paulding, Putnam, Seneca, Shelby, Union, Van Wert and Wyandot.
Lessons Learned:
- Obstructing Justice – The Obstructing Justice charge is utilized much less than Obstructing Official Business, but in this case was the proper charge. “[N]o person, with purpose to hinder the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for crime . . . shall . . . [h]arbor or conceal the other person.” O.R.C. §2921.32(A)(1). A key takeaway from this case is that lying to police that a person is hiding in an apartment will be sufficient to sustain a conviction for Obstructing Justice. Also, the unidentified law enforcement agency also utilized circumstantial evidence to provide facts that Mr. Yelton was hiding in the apartment. The officers conducted surveillance on the apartment and were able to determine that no one entered or left the apartment for twenty-one minutes until EMS arrived. At that time the officers were able to lawfully arrest Mr. Yelton and Ms. Caudill.
- Body Camera – The body camera video refuted Ms. Caudill’s testimony that the officers did not tell her she was under arrest and therefore the resisting arrest charge should be dismissed. Law enforcement must always tell a suspect that they are under arrest. In 2009 the Sixth Circuit Appellate Court held “The general consensus among our cases is that officers cannot use force … on a detainee who has been subdued, is not told he is under arrest, or is not resisting arrest.” Grawery v. Drury, 567 F.3d 302, 314 (6th, 2009). In this case, Sidney Police Officer Sean Martin did well to tell Ms. Caudill she was under arrest. Her actions that immediately followed were sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed Assault on a Police Officer and Resisting Arrest.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Both the unidentified law enforcement agency and officer(s) in the Obstructing Justice incident and Sidney Police Officer Sean Martin should be highly commended. Well done!
Does your agency train on Obstructing Justice?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!