[W]e find that Mr. Jewell’s convictions on the charges of Resisting Arrest and Failure to Disclose Personal Information were supported by sufficient evidence.
State v. Jewell
Fifth District Appellate Court
Stark County, Ohio
August 29, 2025
Why is this case important?
State v. Jewell substantiates that when a person is reasonably suspected of committing a crime, the suspect must identify himself to law enforcement upon request or it is violative of Failure to Disclose Personal Information O.R.C. §2921.29(A)(1).
Mr. Jewell Enters the Dollar General with a Motorized Bicycle
He Refused to Leave
L.D., manager of the Dollar General on Tuscarawas Street, was working on April 4, 2024, when she was called to the front of the store by a cashier because Mr. Jewell had entered the store with his motorized bicycle. L.D. recognized Mr. Jewell from a prior incident during which he brought his bicycle into the store, and asked him to leave it outside. Mr. Jewell argued with L.D., yelling, cursing, and making a scene. Mr. Jewell was asked to leave the store, but refused. In response to Mr. Jewell’s conduct and refusal to leave, L.D. told the cashier to hit the panic button and call the police.
Mr. Jewell entered the Dollar General Store at 915 Tuscarawas Street in Canton with a bicycle and refused to leave. Later Mr. Jewell refused to identify himself to Canton Police Officer Andrew Cook.
Panic Alarm and Canton Police Respond
Canton Police Patrol Officer Andrew Cook responded to the call. Officer Cook learned from dispatch that the silent panic alarm had been hit for an unwanted and disruptive person in the store with a bike. When he arrived at Dollar General he observed L.D. and Mr. Jewell leaving the store.
Mr. Jewell Refuses to Identify Himself
L.D. told Officer Cook that she wanted Mr. Jewell removed from the store. Cook, who believed that Mr. Jewell may have committed a crime, made multiple requests for Mr. Jewell’s identification. Mr. Jewell refused to provide his identification, or any other personal information. Officer Cook told Mr. Jewell to provide his name or he would be placed in handcuffs. Mr. Jewell continued to refuse to identify himself or otherwise cooperate. Officer Cook told Mr. Jewell numerous times to get off of his bicycle. Mr. Jewell refused to get off his bicycle, and continued to refuse to provide any identifying information. After several more unsuccessful requests for Mr. Jewell’s identification, Officer Cook attempted to place Mr. Jewell in handcuffs.
Mr. Jewell Refuses to be Handcuffed
Mr. Jewell tensed his left arm and pulled it towards his body, preventing Cook from placing Mr. Jewell’s hands behind his back. Officer Cook gave Mr. Jewell one final warning, telling him to comply with the orders or Cook would push Mr. Jewell off his bicycle and take him to the ground. Mr. Jewell did not comply. Officer Cook took Mr. Jewell to the ground and asked him to place his hands behind his back. Mr. Jewell continued his defiant behavior, stated “no,” and refused to put his hands behind his back. Additional officers arrived on the scene, and Mr. Jewell finally acquiesced, stating “fine I will do it.” Officer Cook later identified Mr. Jewell using an Ohio identification card found in his wallet.
Mr. Jewell is Charged with Obstructing Official Business, Failure to Identify Himself and Resisting Arrest
Mr. Jewell was charged with Resisting Arrest in violation of O.R.C. §2921.33, a misdemeanor of the second degree; and, Obstructing Official Business in violation of O.R.C. §2921.31, a misdemeanor of the second degree. He pleaded not guilty at his arraignment, and demanded a jury trial. Mr. Jewell initially chose to represent himself, but was subsequently appointed counsel. The matter was scheduled for trial, and the Obstructing Official Business charge was amended to Failure to Disclose Personal Information in violation of O.R.C. §2921.29(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
Trial – Convicted
The case proceeded to a jury trial in the Canton Municipal Court on July 15, 2024. The jury heard testimony from L.D., Officer Cook, and Mr. Jewell. Footage from Officer Cook’s body camera was admitted into evidence. The jury convicted Mr. Jewell on both charges.
Mr. Jewell Appeals
Mr. Jewell filed a timely appeal, and sets forth the following two assignments of error:
“I. THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
SUSTAIN A CONVICTION AGAINST MR. JEWELL, AND THE
CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED.”
“II. MR. JEWELL’S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, AND MUST BE REVERSED.”
Mr. Jewell argues that his convictions were not based upon sufficient evidence, and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
Although sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight entail different legal concepts, both entail a review of the record, and as such we shall address Mr. Jewell’s assignments of error together.
Resisting Arrest
Mr. Jewell was tried on charges of Resisting Arrest and Failure to Disclose Personal Information. O.R.C. §2921.33 defines Resisting Arrest, and states in pertinent part: (A) No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another.
Failure To Disclose
O.R.C. §2921.29 defines Failure to Disclose Personal Information, and states in pertinent part:
(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
The evidence adduced at trial establishes the elements of both offenses.
Mr. Jewell Previously Entered the Dollar Store With a Bicycle
L.D. testified that she was the manager of the Dollar General, and that she had previously asked Mr. Jewell to refrain from bringing his bicycle into the store for safety reasons. Mr. Jewell complained to the Dollar General corporate office about L.D., and the corporate office supported her decision. L.D. was working on April 4, 2024, when Mr. Jewell again entered the store on his motorized bicycle. She was called to the front by another employee and, again, asked Mr. Jewell to leave his bicycle outside the store for safety reasons. She testified that she asked Mr. Jewell multiple times to take his bicycle outside; he refused, and continued arguing with her, yelling and cursing. L.D. then told the cashier to call law enforcement. L.D. walked outside when Officer Cook arrived, and Mr. Jewell followed.
Officer Cook’s Testimony
Officer Cook testified that dispatch received a call from the alarm company for the Dollar General regarding a silent panic alarm. Upon arrival, Officer Cook observed Mr. Jewell leaving the store with his bicycle. Officer Cook was advised by L.D. that Mr. Jewell had been asked several times not to bring his bicycle into the store, refused to stop doing so, engaged in an argument with her, and refused to leave. Officer Cook testified that at the time of the call he was “not sure if any other crimes had occurred,” so he had to investigate. Officer Cook asked Mr. Jewell for his name and identification, but Mr. Jewell refused to provide them. Officer Cook advised Mr. Jewell that if he did not provide his name, Cook was going to have to place Mr. Jewell in handcuffs. Mr. Jewell continued his refusal to provide the requested personal information, and refused to get off of his bicycle. Officer Cook testified that he attempted to place Mr. Jewell in handcuffs, but Mr. Jewell tensed up his left arm and pulled it up towards the front of his body. Cook testified that he told Mr. Jewell that, if he did not comply, Cook was going to be forced to push Mr. Jewell off his bicycle and onto the ground, and place him in handcuffs. Mr. Jewell continued to refuse to comply, and Officer Cook pushed Mr. Jewell off of his bicycle and onto the ground. Mr. Jewell continued to refuse to place his hands behind his back even after he was on the ground. It was only after sirens could be heard coming towards the Dollar General location that Mr. Jewell acquiesced and allowed Officer Cook to place him in handcuffs.
Officer Cook also testified that he was wearing an operable body camera at the time of the incident, the footage from which was played for the jury. The body cam footage supported Cook’s testimony, and evidenced the fact that he asked Mr. Jewell at least four times to provide his name. Finally, Officer Cook testified that, at the time of his encounter with Mr. Jewell, Cook “didn’t know if there were any other crimes or anything so [he was] investigating whether or not [Mr. Jewell] potentially could have committed other offenses,” and that he “believed that [Mr. Jewell] could have been committing or had committed a crime at that point.”
Mr. Jewell Believes in ‘My Fifth Amendment’
Mr. Jewell testified that he went to the Dollar General and took his bicycle inside, claiming he had been permitted to do in the past, and set it in front near the register. He testified that L.D. asked him to take his bicycle outside, but he was afraid it would get stolen so he refused. Mr. Jewell testified that L.D. kept arguing with him as he continued to shop. Mr. Jewell testified that Officer Cook asked for his name, but did not tell him he was suspected of a crime. Mr. Jewell testified that he did not give Officer Cook his name “[B]ecause I believe in my Fifth Amendment to remain silent and also if I am not suspected or if I didn’t get caught in the act of committing a crime, I shouldn’t have to disclose my personal information.”
[W]e find that the evidence adduced at trial is legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict as a matter of law, and as such the guilty verdict on the charges of Resisting Arrest and Failure to Disclose Personal Information are supported by sufficient evidence.
Based upon our review of the record, we find that the evidence adduced at trial is legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict as a matter of law, and as such the guilty verdict on the charges of Resisting Arrest and Failure to Disclose Personal Information are supported by sufficient evidence. Furthermore, after a review of the entire record, we cannot say that the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the convictions must be reversed and a new trial ordered. As such, we find that the jury’s verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Conclusion and Holding
Based upon the foregoing, we find that Mr. Jewell’s convictions on the charges of Resisting Arrest and Failure to Disclose Personal Information were supported by sufficient evidence, and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, Mr. Jewell’s assignments of error numbers one and two are overruled, and the judgment of the Canton Municipal Court is hereby affirmed.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Jewell, 2025 – Ohio – 3125.
State v. Jewell, 2025 – Ohio – 3125 was issued by the Fifth District Appellate Court on August 29, 2025 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas.
Lessons Learned:
- Failure to Disclose Personal Information – To arrest and sustain a conviction for O.R.C. §2921.29(A)(1) states: “No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects . . . [t]he person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.”; the person must first be suspected of a criminal offense. Thereafter a law enforcement officer may only request the person’s name, date of birth and home address.
- What was the underlying criminal offense? In this case, Mr. Jewell was accused of Criminal Trespass by the witness L.D. who was an employee of Dollar General.
- Fifth Amendment – During the encounter Mr. Jewell opined “[B]ecause I believe in my Fifth Amendment to remain silent and also if I am not suspected or if I didn’t get caught in the act of committing a crime, I shouldn’t have to disclose my personal information.”. When a person is reasonably suspected of committing a crime, the person must identify himself. A person cannot ‘take the Fifth’ or ‘plead the Fifth’ during an encounter with law enforcement. The person can remain silent in accordance with the Fifth Amendment, but ‘taking the Fifth’ is a legal tactic exercised under oath in court. Of course remaining silent when a suspect has a legal obligation to identify himself can lead to a lawful arrest and successful prosecution for R.C. §2921.29 Failure to ID.
- Resisting Arrest – R.C. §2921.33(A)“No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another.” In this case “Mr. Jewell tensed his left arm and pulled it towards his body, preventing Cook from placing Mr. Jewell’s hands behind his back. Officer Cook gave Mr. Jewell one final warning, telling him to comply with the orders or Cook would push Mr. Jewell off his bicycle and take him to the ground. Mr. Jewell did not comply. Officer Cook took Mr. Jewell to the ground and asked him to place his hands behind his back. Mr. Jewell continued his defiant behavior, stated “no,” and refused to put his hands behind his back.”. Even brief or passive resistance—refusing to release an arm—may meet the statutory threshold of Resisting Arrest.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Canton Police Patrol Officer Andrew Cook and the City of Canton Attorney’s Office should be highly commended for the arrest, prosecution and successful appeal of Mr. Jewell. Well done!
Does your agency train on Failure to ID?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!