manifest weight challenge in Ohio

2026State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997); State v. Martin, 2022-Ohio-4175, ¶ 26 . {¶45} In reviewing a manifest-weight claim, the appellate court acts as a “thirteenth juror,” reviewing the entire record, weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and considering witness credibility.

2026State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997); State v. Martin, 2022-Ohio-4175, ¶ 26 . {¶45} In reviewing a manifest-weight claim, the appellate court acts as a “thirteenth juror,” reviewing the entire record, weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and considering witness credibility.

2026Reversal on manifest weight grounds is reserved for “the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983). {¶ 42} We often caution that while under a manifest-weight standard we consider the credibility of witnesses, we must nonetheless extend special deference to the jury’s credibility determinations given that it is the jury who has the benefit of seeing the witnesses testify, observing their facial expressions and body language, hearing their voice inflections, and discerning qu

2026“A reviewing court considering a manifest-weight claim ‘review[s] the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, [and] considers the credibility of witnesses.’” State v. Group, 2002-Ohio-7247, ¶ 77 , quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).

2024This Court has explained the manifest weight standard of review as follows: When conducting a manifest weight review, we are required to consider the whole record, “weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [the judgment] must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986).

2023“This Court will not overturn a conviction on a manifest weight challenge only because the jury found the testimony of certain witnesses to be credible.” Id.

2026When applying the manifest weight standard, “[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s judgment.” State v. Haller, 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Hunter, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119 . -11- Case No. 1-24-61 McLellan’s Offenses {¶30} McLellan was convicted of three drug-possession charges in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), which provides, “[n]o person shall knowingly obtain, posses, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog.” “‘Possess’ or ‘possession’ means having c

2026When applying the manifest-weight standard, “[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s judgment.” State v. Haller, 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Hunter, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119 .

2026Eastley, 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 21 ; Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). {¶28} A manifest weight claim succeeds only in “the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 .

2026Eastley, 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 21 ; Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). {¶26} A manifest-weight claim succeeds only in “the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 .

2026State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). {¶19} When applying the manifest-weight standard, “[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s judgment.” State v. Haller, 2012- Ohio-5233, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Hunter, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119 .

2026State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). {¶12} When applying the manifest-weight standard, “[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s judgment.” State v. Haller, 2012- Ohio-5233, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Hunter, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119 .

2026Motors, L.L.C. v. Kaba, 2025-Ohio-640, ¶ 76 (8th Dist.), citing Revilo Tyluka, LLC v. Simon Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 2011-Ohio-1922, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.), and Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984).

2024“When reviewing civil appeals from bench trials, we apply a manifest-weight standard of review.” Revilo Tyluka, L.L.C. v. Simon Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 2011-Ohio-1922, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.), citing App.R. 12(C) and Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984).

2026“A manifest weight challenge attacks the credibility of the evidence presented and questions whether the prosecution met its burden of persuasion at trial.” State v. Rodriguez, 2021-Ohio-2580, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), citing Whitsett, 2014-Ohio-4933, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.).

2026State v. Whitsett, 2014-Ohio-4933, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.), citing Thompkins, 1997-Ohio- 52 at ¶ 24; State v. Bowden, 2009-Ohio-3598 , ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing Thompkins at ¶ 33 .

2025“When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a ‘thirteenth juror’ and disagrees with the factfinder's resolution of the conflicting testimony.” Id., citing Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982). {¶65} To evaluate a manifest weight claim, a court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and consider the credibility of witnesses.

2024“This Court will not overturn a conviction on a manifest weight challenge only because the [trier of fact] found the testimony of certain witnesses to be credible.” Id. {¶20} Here, although Mr. Williams classified this as a manifest weight argument, Mr. Williams has not developed a manifest weight argument and this Court will not develop one on his behalf.

2026For the following reasons, this Court disagrees. {¶34} “An appellate court conducts the same manifest weight analysis in both criminal and civil cases.” (Alteration omitted.) Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103, 115 (9th Dist. 2001), quoting Ray v. Vansickle, 1998 WL 716930 , *1 (9th Dist.

2025L.L.C., 2011-Ohio-2341, ¶ 7 (3d Dist.). {¶92} When applying the manifest-weight standard of review, the reviewing court reviews the entire record, “‘weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’” Eastley at ¶ 17 , quoting Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103, 115 (9th Dist. 2001).

2026An appellate court reviewing a manifest weight challenge to a criminal conviction “may not merely substitute its view for that of the trier of fact, but must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Harris, 2014-Ohio-2501, ¶ 22 (10th Dist.), citing Thompkins at ¶ 25 .

2025An appellate court considering a manifest weight challenge “may not merely substitute its view for that of the trier of fact, but must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Harris, 2014-Ohio-2501, ¶ 22 (10th Dist.), citing Thompkins at 387 .

2026Eastley, 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 21 ; Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). {¶26} A manifest-weight claim succeeds only in “the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 .

2026Analysis In addressing a manifest-weight challenge, this court remains mindful of “the presumption in favor of the finder of the fact.” State v. Gray, 2021- Ohio-844, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.), quoting Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 21 .

2026See State v. Thompkins, 1997-Ohio-52, ¶ 22 (“The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different.”). {¶13} A manifest-weight challenge asks this court to review the entire record, weigh the evidence, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and sit as the “thirteenth juror” to determine whether the trier of fact “clearly lost its way.” Id. at ¶ 25.

2025Weight is not a question of mathematics but depends on its effect in inducing belief.” State v. Thompkins, 1997-Ohio-52, ¶¶ 9-10 . {¶24} When applying the manifest weight standard, “[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court's judgment.” State v. Haller, 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Hunter, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119 . {¶25} Jewell’s brief makes multiple statements that are not supported by the record.

2007Mikolaj's argument is meritless. {¶ 22} When reviewing a manifest weight claim, this court's role is to examine whether the evidence produced at trial "attains the high degree of probative force and certainty required of a criminal conviction." State v. Getsy , 84 Ohio St.3d 180 , 193 , 1998-Ohio-0533 .

2007Thompkins at 386. {¶ 15} When reviewing a manifest weight claim, this court's role is to examine whether the evidence produced at trial "attains the high degree of probative force and certainty required of a criminal conviction." State v. Getsy , 84 Ohio St.3d 180 , 193 , 1998-Ohio-0533 .

2001In McIntyre , we found this to be the applicable standard of review as the Ohio Supreme Court, in the case of State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404 , addressed a similar challenge under a manifest weight standard of review.

2001In McIntyre , we found this to be the applicable standard of review as the Ohio Supreme Court, in the case of State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404 , addressed a similar challenge under a manifest weight standard of review.

2025“When considering a manifest weight claim, a reviewing court must examine the entire record, weigh the evidence, and consider the credibility of witnesses.” Id. at 13, citing State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79, 80 (1982).

2025“When considering a manifest weight claim, a reviewing court must examine the entire record, weigh the evidence, and consider the credibility of witnesses.” State v. Bowden, 2009-Ohio-3598 , ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79, 80 (1982).