[Cite as State v. Noonan, 2026-Ohio-3048.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-260024
TRIAL NO. C/24/CRB/18122
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
JUDGMENT ENTRY
MARK NOONAN, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs.
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24.
The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk:
Enter upon the journal of the court on 8/7/2026.
Pursuant to App.R. 30, the clerk is directed to serve upon all parties, or their counsel if represented, a copy of the court’s judgment and note such action on the docket.
By:_______________________
Administrative Judge
[Cite as State v. Noonan, 2026-Ohio-3048.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-260024
TRIAL NO. C/24/CRB/18122
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
OPINION
MARK NOONAN, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 7, 2026
Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Angela W. Chang, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Joshua A. Thompson, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Noonan, 2026-Ohio-3048.]
CROUSE, Judge.
{¶1} When defendant-appellant Mark Noonan ignored doctors’ orders by
attempting to get out of bed, a nurse’s unwelcomed help ended in an assault. The nurse
claimed that, when she tried to return Noonan to bed, he pulled out her hair, slammed
her head against a railing, and threw her across the room. Noonan was convicted of
assault. He now appeals, raising a manifest-weight challenge arguing that C.M.’s
testimony was inconsistent with her injuries. We find no such error and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} Noonan was a patient in Bethesda North Hospital. He had been on bedrest for over a week and was under a strict fluid restriction due to surgery. While in the
hospital, Noonan had an altercation with a nurse, C.M., which led to Noonan being
charged and tried for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13.
{¶3} At trial, the State presented C.M. as its sole witness. C.M. testified that
she had observed Noonan attempting to get out of bed. C.M. then leaned down to lift
Noonan up. Noonan grabbed her head and began pulling her hair. C.M. testified that
she grabbed Noonan’s arm to get him to let go, but he did not. C.M. testified that
Noonan hit her head against the side rail, ripped her hair out, and threw her across
the room.
{¶4} C.M. did not recall having any marks or bruising on her face. She
testified that as a result of the incident, she had an impingement in her left shoulder,
for which she received treatment. She also said that she experienced psychological
trauma, such that she can no longer be in the room when a patient acts up. C.M. further
testified that she experienced hair loss and that she had a severe headache the next
day, which she attributed to the incident.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶5} Through C.M.’s testimony, the State introduced three photos into
evidence. The first photo showed a scratch on C.M.’s right thumb. C.M. told the trial
court she “probably” got the scratch from her and Noonan’s struggle. The second photo
showed a hairless patch on the right side of C.M.’s scalp. C.M. again told the trial court
that she was missing hair on the right side of her head because Noonan had pulled it
out. The third photo showed a bag of hair, which C.M. authenticated as the hair that
Noonan had pulled from her head. Sergeant Harris would later testify that he took the
photos of C.M.’s thumb and scalp.
{¶6} On cross-examination, C.M. testified that she reported the incident to
Sergeant Harris, but never provided medical records to the State.
{¶7} Noonan then called Sergeant Harris, who had met with C.M. on the day
of the incident. Sergeant Harris testified that he had not noticed any lacerations,
bruising, or bleeding on C.M. Sergeant Harris did not document the room where the
incident occurred or speak with Noonan.
{¶8} The trial court found Noonan guilty of assault, explaining that “we’re
not here on felonious assault; it’s any harm, any injury, however slight. Even the hair
pulling itself justified an assault here.”
II. Analysis
{¶9} Noonan’s sole assignment of error contends that his conviction was
against the manifest weight of the evidence. He argues that the trial court improperly
found C.M.’s testimony credible when that testimony did not match the evidence of
her injuries.
{¶10} Under a manifest-weight challenge, the court must look at the State’s
burden of persuasion in the trial court. State v. Gibson, 2023-Ohio-1640, ¶ 8 (1st
Dist.); see State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26. We review the entire record,
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and consider the credibility of
witnesses to determine whether the trier of fact lost its way and created a manifest
miscarriage of justice. State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983); State
v. Reillo, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2701, ¶ 26. We must necessarily assess
credibility, where we can do so from the record alone. State v. Garrett, 2026-Ohio-49,
¶ 69 (1st Dist.). However, the factfinder observed the witnesses firsthand, so we
generally defer to the trial court’s assessments on credibility. Id. Only in exceptional
cases, in which the evidence weighs heavily against the factfinder’s decision, will we
reverse and grant a new trial. See Reillo at ¶ 26, 31-32; Martin at 175.
{¶11} Under R.C. 2903.13(A), an assault occurs when a person “knowingly
cause[s] or attempt[s] to cause physical harm to another.” Noonan argues that his
conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because C.M.’s testimony
did not match her injuries. Noonan also briefly argues that the State failed to show
that the hair-pulling caused C.M. pain or other physical harm.
A. C.M.’s Credibility
{¶12} Noonan challenges C.M.’s credibility by arguing that her testimony did
not match her injuries. The trial court did not articulate its credibility findings or state
which actions it deemed to have constituted the assault. However, the court did
reference the hair-pulling, stating explicitly that “even hair pulling itself justified an
assault here.”
{¶13} The evidence of C.M.’s injuries supported her allegation that Noonan
pulled out her hair. In addition to C.M.’s testimony about the hair-pulling, the record
contains two corroborating photos. One photo shows C.M.’s scalp with hair seemingly
missing on the right side. Sergeant Harris testified that he took this photo on the date
of the incident. Another photo shows a bag of hair, which C.M. testified Noonan had
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
pulled out of her head. There are no obvious wounds or blood in the scalp picture, nor
does the hair in the bag appear caked with skin or blood. Nevertheless, the trial court
did not lose its way in finding that these photos corroborated, rather than undermined,
C.M.’s hair-pulling testimony.
{¶14} But Noonan also points to the lack of any obvious wounds left by the
other violence C.M. alleged. He notes that the trial court gave no explanation for why
it found C.M.’s hair-pulling claims credible but disbelieved or disregarded the
remainder of her account. Thus, Noonan seems to suggest that, even assuming the trial
court based its conviction solely on the hair-pulling, the lack of substantiation for
C.M.’s other allegations should have vitiated her credibility across the board.
{¶15} A trial court “‘may believe all, part or none of witness’s testimony.’”
State v. Miller, 2025-Ohio-4361, ¶ 22 (1st Dist.), quoting In re J.C., 2019-Ohio-4027,
¶ 20 (1st Dist.). Here, there was photographic evidence of a bag of hair and an apparent
bald patch, which tended to corroborate hair-pulling testimony. Based on this
corroboration, the trial court could have believed C.M.’s testimony that Noonan pulled
out her hair, while harboring doubts about her other, more violent allegations. Such a
credibility determination is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶16} Nor did the trial court lose its way in concluding that the bagged hair
seen in the photograph had belonged to C.M. Noonan argues that “the hair in the bag
. . . does not appear to have the same light brown or possibly gray hairs mixed in that
can be seen in” the photograph of C.M.’s scalp. But the photographs were clearly taken
in different lighting, such that it is difficult to compare coloration. And even with the
differences in lighting, the claimed difference in color is far from obvious. It is certainly
not so pronounced that it legally compelled the trial court to discredit C.M.’s testimony
that the hair was hers.
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
B. Proof of Harm
{¶17} Noonan also briefly argues that C.M. did not testify that the hair-pulling
caused her pain, stinging, tenderness, or any other immediate physical effect or
physical sensations of harm, so that a conviction based on the hair-pulling alone would
be contrary to the evidence.
{¶18} The State alleged that Noonan “knowingly cause[d] physical harm to
[C.M.] contrary to and in violation of [R.C.] 2903.13.” “Physical harm” is defined as
“any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or
duration.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(3). Even the slightest injury can constitute physical harm.
State v. Cook, 2021-Ohio-3841, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Daniels, 2018-Ohio-1701,
¶ 35-36 (1st Dist.). This court has held that simply inflicting pain is enough to
constitute physical harm, regardless of whether it leaves a mark. See id.; accord State
v. Hustead, 83 Ohio App.3d 809, 811 (4th Dist. 1992).
{¶19} Here, there was arguably testimony that C.M. experienced pain as a
result of the hair-pulling. C.M. testified that “as a result of this incident,” she “had a
severe headache the next day.” However, C.M. never affirmatively linked this headache
to the hair-pulling.
{¶20} But even if C.M. never testified explicitly that the hair-pulling caused
her pain, the trial court could still have determined that Noonan caused C.M. physical
harm.
{¶21} In some cases, hair-pulling alone—without proof of pain or resulting
injury—may not be enough to support a finding of “physical harm.” In State v. Daniels,
2018-Ohio-1701 (1st Dist.), for example, the victim testified that the defendant pulling
her hair did not hurt her. Id. at ¶ 7. Without consequent injury or pain, neither this
court nor the trial court considered the hair-pulling as grounds for the assault
7
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
conviction. See id. at ¶ 13, 36.
{¶22} But testimony of pain or physical wounds is not always necessary to
sustain a “physical harm” finding, either. In State v. Terry, 2023-Ohio-3131 (1st Dist.),
the victim testified that defendant had choked her, but photographs showed no marks
on the victim’s neck and this court referenced no testimony about the victim’s pain.
Id. at ¶ 14. Nevertheless, we upheld the conviction and the trial court’s finding of
“physical harm.” Id. at ¶ 14-15.
{¶23} In this case, Noonan did not simply pull C.M.’s hair—he pulled C.M.’s
hair out. C.M. testified that she was left with a bald spot, a fact corroborated by the
photos. This was therefore unlike the mere hair-pulling in Daniels. The force required
to pull a significant amount of hair from C.M.’s head—like the act of choking the victim
in Terry—would obviously have caused pain. Compare Cleveland v. Watson, 2020-Ohio-3284, ¶ 35 (8th Dist.) (victim experienced “physical harm” when defendant
“‘grabbed [her] weave’ and was ‘swinging [her] back and forth by [her] hair’”
(Bracketed text in original.)). Under these facts, the trial court could use its common
sense to draw this obvious inference. Thus, even without explicit testimony about
C.M.’s pain, the evidence sufficed to prove physical harm.
III. Conclusion
{¶24} The trial court did not lose its way in finding that Noonan knowingly
caused C.M. physical harm by pulling out her hair. We therefore overrule Noonan’s
sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
KINSLEY, P.J., and MOORE, J., concur.
8