sufficiency of the evidence claim in Ohio

2026"When applying a sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard, a court of appeals should affirm a trial court when 'the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.' " Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko, 115 Ohio St. 3d 291 , 2007-Ohio-4918 , 874 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 3 , quoting Thompkins at 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 , quoting Black's at 1433.

2026“When applying a sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard, a court of appeals should affirm a trial court when “ ‘the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.” ’ ” Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko, 115 Ohio St.3d 291 , 2007-Ohio-4918 , 874 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 3 , quoting Thompkins at 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 , quoting Black's at 1433.

2020No. 15AP-1117, 2016- Ohio-7130, ¶ 32, citing State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 484 (2001). {¶ 55} "In a sufficiency of the evidence inquiry, appellate courts do not assess whether the prosecution's evidence is to be believed but whether, if believed, the evidence supports the conviction." Kurtz at ¶ 16, citing State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 , 2002- Nos. 18AP-630 and 18AP-631 20 Ohio-2126, ¶ 79-80 (evaluation of witness credibility not proper on review for sufficiency of evidence); State v. Bankston, 10th Dist.

2020State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 484 (2001). {¶ 24} In a sufficiency of the evidence inquiry, appellate courts do not assess whether the prosecution's evidence is to be believed, but whether, if believed, the evidence supports the conviction.

2023In considering a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, “the test is whether after viewing the probative evidence and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). {¶26} Here, the juvenile court cited R.C. 2152.14(E) and found that Appellant was over 14 years old and serving the juvenile portion of his SYO dispositional sentence as he was on parole/early release from D

2023In considering a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, “the test is whether after viewing the probative evidence and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). {¶26} Here, the juvenile court cited R.C. 2152.14(E) and found that Appellant was over 14 years old and serving the juvenile portion of his SYO dispositional sentence as he was on parole/early release from D

2026E.g., Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273 (1991); State v. Brock, 2024-Ohio-1036, ¶ 13 (4th Dist.). {¶54} Furthermore, under the sufficiency of the evidence standard a reviewing court does not assess “whether the state's evidence is to be believed, but whether, if believed, the evidence against a defendant would support a conviction.

2025E.g., Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273 (1991). {¶27} Furthermore, under the sufficiency of the evidence standard a reviewing court does not assess “whether the state's evidence is to be believed, but whether, if believed, the evidence against a defendant would support a conviction.” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 390 (Cook, J., concurring).

2025State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 553 (1995). {¶41} “A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence tests whether the state has properly discharged its burden to produce competent, probative, evidence on each Case No. 24 MA 0107 – 10 – element of the offense charged.” State v. Petefish, 2011-Ohio-6367, ¶ 16 (7th Dist.).

2013“An appellate court reviews a denial of a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal using the same standard that an appellate court uses to review a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim.” State v. Ali, 154 Ohio App.3d 493 , 2003- Ohio-5150, ¶ 21 (7th Dist.), citing State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 553 (1995).

2026See, e.g., State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 205 (1996); State v. Grant, 67 Ohio St.3d 465, 477 (1993).

2025See, e.g., State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 205 (1996); State v. Grant, 67 Ohio St.3d 465, 477 (1993).

2021State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 553 , 1995-Ohio-104 , 651 N.E.2d 965 .

2020See State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 553 , 1995-Ohio-104 .

2026State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶29} A sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge asks whether the evidence is “legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Lang, 2011-Ohio- 4215, ¶ 219; State v. Worley, 2021-Ohio-2207, ¶57 ; State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997).

2026In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, “‘[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Fenderson, 2022-Ohio-1973, ¶ 73 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 37} The jury convicted Gonzales of failure to register his residence and failure to register his place of employment.

2015“A reviewing court will not overturn a conviction on a sufficiency of the evidence claim unless reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion the trier of fact did.” Id. citing State v. Tibbetts, Ross App. No. 14CA3467 19 92 Ohio St.3d 146, 162 , 749 N.E .2d 226 (2001); State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 484 , 739 N.E .2d 749 (2001). {¶ 41} Lewis was tried and convicted of aggravated burglary, felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.11 which states: No person, by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass in an occupied structure or in a separately secured or separately occu

2014“A reviewing court will not overturn a conviction on a sufficiency of the evidence claim unless reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion the trier of fact did.” Id. citing State v. Tibbetts, 92 Ohio St.3d 146, 162 , 749 N.E .2d 226 (2001); State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 484 , 739 N.E .2d 749 (2001). {¶ 16} R.C. 2903.13(A), codifying the offense of Assault, states: “No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another's unborn.” R.C. 2903.13(C)(5) further states: “If the victim of the offense is a peace officer ***while in the performance of the

2024Therefore, "[i]n a sufficiency of the evidence inquiry, appellate courts do not assess whether the prosecution's evidence is to be believed but whether, if believed, the evidence supports the conviction." State v. Carter, 2018-Ohio- 29, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Yarbrough, 2002-Ohio-2126, ¶ 79-80 .

2024"In a sufficiency of the evidence inquiry, appellate courts do not assess whether the prosecution's evidence is to be believed but whether, if believed, the evidence supports the conviction." State v. Carter, 2018-Ohio-29, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Yarbrough, 2002-Ohio-2126, ¶ 79-80 . {¶ 42} Rather, when reviewing whether a jury's verdict finding the defendant guilty - 16 - Fayette CA2024-01-001 was supported by sufficient evidence, "[t]his court merely determines whether there exists any evidence in the record that the trier of fact could have believed, construing all evidence in favor

2015“A reviewing court will not overturn a conviction on a sufficiency of the evidence claim unless reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion the trier of fact did.” Id. citing State v. Tibbetts, Ross App. No. 14CA3467 19 92 Ohio St.3d 146, 162 , 749 N.E .2d 226 (2001); State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 484 , 739 N.E .2d 749 (2001). {¶ 41} Lewis was tried and convicted of aggravated burglary, felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.11 which states: No person, by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass in an occupied structure or in a separately secured or separately occu

2014“A reviewing court will not overturn a conviction on a sufficiency of the evidence claim unless reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion the trier of fact did.” Id. citing State v. Tibbetts, 92 Ohio St.3d 146, 162 , 749 N.E .2d 226 (2001); State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 484 , 739 N.E .2d 749 (2001). {¶ 16} R.C. 2903.13(A), codifying the offense of Assault, states: “No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another's unborn.” R.C. 2903.13(C)(5) further states: “If the victim of the offense is a peace officer ***while in the performance of the

2024Standard of Review {¶30} “The sufficiency-of-the-evidence test ‘raises a question of law and does not allow us to weigh the evidence.’ ” State v. Knowlton, 2012-Ohio-2350, ¶ 11 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Smith, Pickaway, 2007-Ohio-502, ¶ 34 (4th Dist.).

2024Washington App. No. 22CA28 18 {¶36} “The sufficiency-of-the-evidence test ‘raises a question of law and does not allow us to weigh the evidence.’ ” State v. Knowlton, 2012-Ohio-2350, ¶ 11 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Smith, 2007-Ohio-502, ¶ 34 (4th Dist.).

2013See State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 174 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983), and Carter v. Estell (CA 5, 1982), 691 F.2d 777,778 .

2013See State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App. 3d 172 , 175 485 N.E. 2d 717 (1983), and Carter v. Estell (C.A. 5, 1982), 691 F. 2d 777, 778 .

2025Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d at 113 . {¶55} A sufficiency of the evidence challenge tests the burden of production while a manifest weight challenge tests the burden of persuasion.

2025Law and Analysis A. Standard of Review {¶ 20} In his single assignment of error, appellant argues that the state failed to produce sufficient evidence that the officer had reasonable suspicion that appellant committed a criminal offense necessary to request his information pursuant to R.C. 8. 2921.29(A)(1).1 In reviewing the error, under the sufficiency of the evidence standard, “the relevant inquiry is whether, after reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable do

2026We note that Smith raised self-defense as a defense to the original assault charge and the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that in, self-defense cases, “‘the state’s rebuttal of a defendant’s claim of self-defense’ is not ‘subject to review under the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard.’” State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 206 , quoting State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 1 . {¶22} Here, however, it is unclear whether self-defense could serve as a full affirmative defense to every element of a disorderly-conduct charge.

2025Therefore, when reviewing whether a trial court's verdict finding the defendant guilty was supported by sufficient evidence, "[t]his court merely determines whether there exists any evidence in the record that the trier of fact could have believed, construing all evidence in favor of the state, to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Brummett, 2024-Ohio-2332, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.). {¶ 11} "Unlike the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review," which, as noted above, addresses the state's burden of production, "'a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of revie

2026Even if Uchyn had renewed his motion, however, his argument that his conviction for Phipps’s murder was based upon insufficient evidence fails. {¶ 58} Crim.R. 29(A) states that a court shall order an entry of judgment of acquittal if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction for the charged offense. “‘Reviewing the denial of a Crim.R. 29 motion therefore requires an appellate court to use the same standard as is used to review a sufficiency of the evidence claim.’” Goney at ¶ 72 , quoting State v. Witcher, 2007-Ohio-3960, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.).

2025Specifically, Rutledge claims the State failed to establish that he acted knowingly. {¶ 69} Under Crim.R. 29(A), “The court on motion of a defendant…, after the evidence on either side is closed, shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged…, if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses….” State v. Hollstein, 2009-Ohio-4771 , ¶ 26-27, citing Crim.R. 29(A). {¶ 70} The standard of review for a Crim.R. 29 motion is “the same standard as is used to review a sufficiency of the evidence claim.” Id. at ¶ 28, citing State v. Wi

2026"When applying a sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard, a court of appeals should affirm a trial court when 'the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.' " Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko, 115 Ohio St. 3d 291 , 2007-Ohio-4918 , 874 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 3 , quoting Thompkins at 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 , quoting Black's at 1433.

2026"When applying a sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard, a court of appeals should affirm a trial court when 'the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.' " Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko, 115 Ohio St. 3d 291 , 2007-Ohio-4918 , 874 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 3 , quoting Thompkins at 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 , quoting Black's at 1433.

2013Specifically, Bell argues that the officers that testified did not actually see drug- for-money transactions, that there were other people in the room that could have made the drug sales other than Bell, and that the confidential informant could have already had the cocaine. {¶11} The Supreme Court of Ohio has “carefully distinguished the terms ‘sufficiency’ and ‘weight’ in criminal cases, declaring that ‘manifest weight’ and ‘legal sufficiency’ are ‘both quantitatively and qualitatively different.’” Eastley v. -4- Case No. 13-12-27 Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 10 , quoting

2013Specifically, Bell argues that the officers that testified did not actually see drug- for-money transactions, that there were other people in the room that could have made the drug sales other than Bell, and that the confidential informant could have already had the cocaine. {¶11} The Supreme Court of Ohio has “carefully distinguished the terms ‘sufficiency’ and ‘weight’ in criminal cases, declaring that ‘manifest weight’ and ‘legal sufficiency’ are ‘both quantitatively and qualitatively different.’” Eastley v. -4- Case No. 13-12-27 Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 10 , quoting

2019Auglaize No. 2-06-35, 2007-Ohio-6704, ¶ 32 , citing State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (1987), syllabus. “‘An appellate court reviews a denial of a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal using the same standard that is used to review a sufficiency of the evidence claim.’” Cunningham at ¶ 34, quoting State v. Reyes, 6th Dist.

2016State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 (1978), syllabus. {¶11} An appellate court reviews a denial of a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal using the same standard that is used to review a sufficiency of the evidence claim.

2026In order to preserve a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal once a defendant elects to present evidence on his behalf, the defendant must renew his Crim.R. 29 motion at the close of all the evidence.” State v. Hurley, 2014-Ohio-2716, ¶ 37 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Edwards, 2004- Ohio-4015, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.).

2025In order to preserve a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal once a defendant elects to present evidence on his behalf, the defendant must renew his Crim.R. 29 motion at the close of all the evidence.” State v. Hurley, 2014-Ohio-2716, ¶ 37 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Edwards, 2004- Ohio-4015, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.).

2015State v. Jones, 90 Ohio St.3d 403, 417 (2000), citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), and State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2014State v. Jones, 90 Ohio St.3d 403, 417 (2000), citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), and State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2026Id. {¶ 28} While a sufficiency of the evidence challenge requires a determination of whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law, a manifest weight challenge “addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing belief.” Cassell at ¶ 38.

2025The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and asks whether “‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Dean, 2015-Ohio-4347, ¶ 150 , quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 1997-Ohio-355 , ¶ 49, fn. 4. 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 17} The appropriate standard of review for a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge is “whether, if believed, the evidence