State v. Weemes
Weemes
Citation
2025 Ohio 2319
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided
June 30, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
45%
Case Summary
[Cite as State v. Weemes, 2025-Ohio-2319.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio/City of Toledo Court of Appeals No. L-24-1137 Appellee Trial Court No. CRB-23-10904 v. Christopher Weemes DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: June 30, 2025 ***** Rebecca Facey, Toledo Prosecuting Attorney, and Jimmie L. Jones, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Henry Schaefer, for appellant. ***** SULEK, P.J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Christopher Weemes, appeals a judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court finding him guilty of assault, following a bench trial, and sentencing him to 180 days of incarceration. Because the conviction is not against the weight of the evidence, it is affirmed. I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} On the evening of November 10, 2023, at the Target store on Alexis Road in Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio, Weemes and his fiancée, Ashlee, were involved in a parking dispute with the victim, A.T., and his fiancée, Alexa. The dispute became physical resulting in assault charges filed against Weemes. Weemes pleaded not guilty. {¶ 3} On April 15, 2024, Weemes filed a notice of intent to present the affirmative defense of self-defense at trial. The matter then proceeded to a bench trial on April 23 and April 30, 2024. The parties relied heavily on the parking lot surveillance video with Weemes and A.T. presenting differing versions of the event. A. The State’s Evidence 1. A.T.’s Testimony {¶ 4} A.T. testified that when he arrived at Target, he backed into a parking spot. He exited the car and walked around the front to help Alexa, his fiancée who was eight months’ pregnant, and his two-year old out of the car. A woman, later identified as Ashlee, exited her vehicle and examined the space between her front bumper and A.T.’s rear bumper. She walked up to A.T. expressing displeasure with how close he backed up to her car. Weemes, her fiancé, exited the driver’s side, walked between the two cars, and approached them. {¶ 5} A.T. told Weemes that he just wanted to get his family and go into Target. Weemes told A.T. to get his family and go into the store; however, Weemes hit A.T. and pursued him around the front of his vehicle. A.T. stated that he could not back away anymore and Weemes was “too close” for him to get into the car so he “got into a little bit of an altercation.” Ashlee grabbed and pulled A.T. by his hooded sweatshirt while Weemes continued hitting him. 2. {¶ 6} A.T. saw Ashlee pulling his pregnant fiancée from the car. A.T. had his firearm out, down at his side, because he feared for his family’s safety. A.T. testified that he did not aim it anywhere but that it “went off in the middle of the altercation.” He re- holstered it but during the ensuing tussle it flew out and slid across the parking lot. A.T. said that Weemes body-slammed him to the ground and started hitting and kicking him while the two women fought for control of the weapon. The State then played the Target surveillance footage with A.T. narrating. {¶ 7} On cross-examination, A.T. admitted that the State charged him with assault and unlawful discharge of a weapon. The State dismissed the assault charge and A.T. pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disorderly conduct. Counsel questioned A.T. about discharging his weapon. He denied knowing exactly when it discharged, just that it discharged during the altercation. A.T. could not recall whether he told police that it discharged when it hit the ground. He maintained that the gun accidentally discharged. {¶ 8} Defense counsel replayed the surveillance video pausing it several times for questioning. A.T. admitted that Ashlee did not immediately approach and start hitting him and that Weemes did not walk up and start punching him. He denied telling this to police. Counsel played a portion of Toledo Police Officer Brandon Gore’s body worn camera (“BWC”) footage where A.T. told Gore that when Ashlee initially approached him, Weemes got out of his car and came over and punched him in the face. A.T. agreed that Weemes did not immediately punch him in the face. 3. {¶ 9} A.T. denied throwing the first punch. He stated that his hand went up but that there was no contact. Weemes got in between A.T. and Ashlee; A.T. admitted to punching him. A.T. agreed that he got up and walked away following Weemes’ attacking him but stated that he was injured and limping; he had
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 30, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
[Cite as State v. Weemes, 2025-Ohio-2319.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio/City of Toledo Court of Appeals No. L-24-1137
Appellee Trial Court No. CRB-23-10904
v.
Christopher Weemes DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: June 30, 2025
*****
Rebecca Facey, Toledo Prosecuting Attorney, and
Jimmie L. Jones, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Henry Schaefer, for appellant.
*****
SULEK, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Christopher Weemes, appeals a judgment of the Toledo
Municipal Court finding him guilty of assault, following a bench trial, and sentencing
him to 180 days of incarceration. Because the conviction is not against the weight of the
evidence, it is affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On the evening of November 10, 2023, at the Target store on Alexis Road in
Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio, Weemes and his fiancée, Ashlee, were involved in a parking dispute with the victim, A.T., and his fiancée, Alexa. The dispute became
physical resulting in assault charges filed against Weemes. Weemes pleaded not guilty.
{¶ 3} On April 15, 2024, Weemes filed a notice of intent to present the affirmative
defense of self-defense at trial. The matter then proceeded to a bench trial on April 23
and April 30, 2024. The parties relied heavily on the parking lot surveillance video with
Weemes and A.T. presenting differing versions of the event.
A. The State’s Evidence
1. A.T.’s Testimony
{¶ 4} A.T. testified that when he arrived at Target, he backed into a parking spot.
He exited the car and walked around the front to help Alexa, his fiancée who was eight
months’ pregnant, and his two-year old out of the car. A woman, later identified as
Ashlee, exited her vehicle and examined the space between her front bumper and A.T.’s
rear bumper. She walked up to A.T. expressing displeasure with how close he backed up
to her car. Weemes, her fiancé, exited the driver’s side, walked between the two cars,
and approached them.
{¶ 5} A.T. told Weemes that he just wanted to get his family and go into Target.
Weemes told A.T. to get his family and go into the store; however, Weemes hit A.T. and
pursued him around the front of his vehicle. A.T. stated that he could not back away
anymore and Weemes was “too close” for him to get into the car so he “got into a little
bit of an altercation.” Ashlee grabbed and pulled A.T. by his hooded sweatshirt while
Weemes continued hitting him.
{¶ 6} A.T. saw Ashlee pulling his pregnant fiancée from the car. A.T. had his
firearm out, down at his side, because he feared for his family’s safety. A.T. testified that
he did not aim it anywhere but that it “went off in the middle of the altercation.” He re-
holstered it but during the ensuing tussle it flew out and slid across the parking lot. A.T.
said that Weemes body-slammed him to the ground and started hitting and kicking him
while the two women fought for control of the weapon. The State then played the Target
surveillance footage with A.T. narrating.
{¶ 7} On cross-examination, A.T. admitted that the State charged him with assault
and unlawful discharge of a weapon. The State dismissed the assault charge and A.T.
pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disorderly conduct. Counsel questioned A.T.
about discharging his weapon. He denied knowing exactly when it discharged, just that it
discharged during the altercation. A.T. could not recall whether he told police that it
discharged when it hit the ground. He maintained that the gun accidentally discharged.
{¶ 8} Defense counsel replayed the surveillance video pausing it several times for
questioning. A.T. admitted that Ashlee did not immediately approach and start hitting
him and that Weemes did not walk up and start punching him. He denied telling this to
police. Counsel played a portion of Toledo Police Officer Brandon Gore’s body worn
camera (“BWC”) footage where A.T. told Gore that when Ashlee initially approached
him, Weemes got out of his car and came over and punched him in the face. A.T. agreed
that Weemes did not immediately punch him in the face.
{¶ 9} A.T. denied throwing the first punch. He stated that his hand went up but
that there was no contact. Weemes got in between A.T. and Ashlee; A.T. admitted to
punching him. A.T. agreed that he got up and walked away following Weemes’
attacking him but stated that he was injured and limping; he had
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 30, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools