manifest weight challenge in Ohio

2026When faced with a manifest-weight challenge, “this court reviews the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and considers the credibility of the witnesses to determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way such that a manifest miscarriage of justice occurred, that the conviction must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.” State v. Wright, 2025-Ohio-672, ¶ 19 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). {¶19} Held challenges his OVI-refusal conviction under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2).

2020Under Ohio law, "[t]he power to reverse on manifest- weight grounds should only be used in exceptional circumstances when 'the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.' " State v. Phillips, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-79, 2014- Ohio-5162, ¶ 125, quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997) (superseded by statute on other grounds). {¶ 37} "Although the legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different, '[a] determination that a conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispos

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). {¶ 44} Although we consider the credibility of witnesses under a manifest-weight standard, we must, nonetheless, extend special deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations, given that it is the court that has the benefit of seeing the witnesses testify, observing their facial expressions and body language, hearing their voice inflections, and discerning qualiti

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

2026When applying the manifest weight standard, “[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the -5- 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 .

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 .

2026Id. {¶44} While Allen’s brief includes the manifest weight standard, he has not presented a manifest weight argument in support of his assignment of error.

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).

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). {¶44} 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.

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.).

2022“A manifest weight challenge attacks the credibility of the evidence presented and questions whether the state met its burden of persuasion at trial.” State v. Whitsett, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101182, 2014-Ohio-4933, ¶ 26 , citing Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 ; State v. Bowden, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92266, 2009-Ohio-3598 , ¶ 13.

2026State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). {¶29} 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). {¶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 .

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).

2019(Id. at 13-14). {¶12} “‘When reviewing a civil appeal from a bench trial, we apply a manifest weight standard of review.’” Lump v. Larson, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-14- 14, 2015-Ohio-469, ¶ 9 , quoting San Allen, Inc. v. Buehrer, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99786, 2014-Ohio-2071, ¶ 89 , citing Revilo Tyluka, L.L.C. v. Simon Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 193 Ohio App.3d 535 , 2011-Ohio-1922, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.). “‘[A] civil judgment “supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of t

2026Harris at ¶ 14 , citing Frazier at ¶ 7 , citing Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 14} A manifest weight claim “attacks the credibility of the evidence presented and questions whether the state met its burden of persuasion.” Harris at ¶ 15 , citing State v. Richey, 2018-Ohio-3498, ¶ 50 (10th Dist.), citing Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 11-13 .

2026Appellant contends that, if the jury had acted in conformity with the evidence, it would have answered “yes” to Interrogatory No. 2 then proceeded as instructed to Interrogatory No. 3 to consider the affirmative defense of whether an exclusion to coverage applied. {¶ 12} A manifest weight claim “attacks the credibility of the evidence presented and questions whether the state met its burden of persuasion.” State v. Harris, 2026-Ohio- 2492, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Richey, 2018-Ohio-3498, ¶ 50 (10th Dist.), citing Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 11-13 ; see also State v. Reillo,

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 .

2026Eastley, 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 21 ; Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). {¶44} 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.

2025When presented with a manifest weight challenge, an appellate court sits as a “ ‘thirteenth juror’ and may disagree ‘with the factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.’ ” State v. Harris, 10th Dist. No. 21AP-678, 2023-Ohio-3994, ¶ 16 , quoting State Thompkins at 387, citing Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982).

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.

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 .

2025We note that an 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, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-770, 2014-Ohio-2501, ¶ 22 , citing Thompkins at 387 .

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).

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.

2026Standard of Review {¶ 34} A manifest-weight challenge examines "'the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.'" (Emphasis sic.) State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 387, 1997-Ohio-52 , quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990).

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).

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.

2026A court that considers a manifest weight challenge must “ ‘review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and consider the credibility of witnesses.’ ” State v. Beasley, 2018-Ohio-493, ¶ 208 , quoting State v. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 328 .

2026A court that considers a manifest weight challenge must “‘review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and consider the credibility of witnesses.’” State v. Beasley, 2018-Ohio-493, ¶ 208 , quoting State v. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 328 .