criminal manifest weight challenge in Ohio

2021Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the criminal manifest weight standard set forth in State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), also applied when reviewing the weight of the evidence in civil cases.

2021Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the criminal manifest weight standard set forth in State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), also applied when reviewing the weight of the evidence in civil cases.

2021In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , ¶ 25, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as follows: The criminal manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard was explained in State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2020Manifest Weight of the Evidence In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , & 25, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as follows: The criminal manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard was explained in State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

2020Manifest Weight of the Evidence In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , ¶ 25, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as follows: The criminal manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard was explained in State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997 Ohio 52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2020Manifest Weight of the Evidence In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , & 25, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as follows: The criminal manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard was explained in State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997 Ohio 52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2013Manifest Weight {¶23} In his second of two assignments of error, which we address out of order for clarity of analysis, Anthony asserts: {¶24} "The jury verdict of guilty to the offenses of burglary was against the manifest weight of the evidence." {¶25} When reviewing a judgment under a criminal manifest weight standard of review, "[t]he court reviewing 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 jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage o

2013Manifest Weight {¶23} In his second of two assignments of error, which we address out of order for clarity of analysis, Anthony asserts: {¶24} "The jury verdict of guilty to the offenses of burglary was against the manifest weight of the evidence." {¶25} When reviewing a judgment under a criminal manifest weight standard of review, "[t]he court reviewing 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 jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage o

2016Cuyahoga No. 97365, 2013-Ohio-1337, ¶ 17 , citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶35} In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as enunciated in Thompkins: In Thompkins, the court distinguished between sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight of the evidence, finding that these concepts differ both qualitatively and quantitatively.

2016Cuyahoga No. 97365, 2013-Ohio-1337, ¶ 17 , citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶35} In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as enunciated in Thompkins: In Thompkins, the court distinguished between sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight of the evidence, finding that these concepts differ both qualitatively and quantitatively.

2018Cuyahoga No. 103760, 2016-Ohio-4962 , 2016 WL 3763108 , ¶ 15 (Gallagher, P.J. concurring) ("I am concerned that the nature of a criminal manifest weight challenge, including arguments relating to the assessment of witness credibility and the weight to be given to testimony, are nonfrivolous legal points that are inherently 'arguable on their merits.' "); State v. Cigic , 138 N.H. 313 , 639 A.2d 251 , 253 (1994) ("Provided that appellate counsel has a good faith basis for doing so, it would also not be frivolous, for example, to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict the defe

2016If, however, we find any of the legal points “arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) [we] must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal.” Id. {¶15} Based on the foregoing language, I am concerned that the nature of a criminal manifest weight challenge, including arguments relating to the assessment of witness credibility and the weight to be given to testimony, are nonfrivolous legal points that are inherently “arguable on their merits.” While I certainly agree with the lead opinion’s conclusion that a manifest weight challenge in th

2016Cuyahoga No. 97365, 2013-Ohio-1337, ¶ 17 , citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶35} In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as enunciated in Thompkins: In Thompkins, the court distinguished between sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight of the evidence, finding that these concepts differ both qualitatively and quantitatively.

2015State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). {¶26} In the case at hand, Parker admitted to stabbing the victim, but claimed he did it in self-defense.

2015State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). {¶26} In the case at hand, Parker admitted to stabbing the victim, but claimed he did it in self-defense.

2012Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012- Ohio-2179, ¶ 17.

2011McDaniel, supra, --- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. at 672 , 175 L.Ed.2d 582 . {¶ 23} The Ohio Supreme Court elucidated the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as follows: {¶ 24} “The criminal manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard was explained in State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2011McDaniel, supra, --- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. at 672 , 175 L.Ed.2d 582 . {¶ 23} The Ohio Supreme Court elucidated the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as follows: {¶ 24} “The criminal manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard was explained in State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2007Thereafter we certified our decision to apply the criminal manifest-weight standard as being in conflict with the decision of the First *Page 2 Appellate District in State v. Hunter (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 116 .

2002See, e.g. , State v. Tillery , Cuyahoga App. No. 79166, 2002-Ohio-1587 ; State v. Childs (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 389 , 395 ; State v. Wilkerson (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 861 ; State v. Gerhardt , Clark App. No. 00CA0090, 2001-Ohio-1470 ; State v. Scott , Logan App. No. 8-2000-26, 2001-Ohio-2107 ; State v. Hood , Washington App. No. 00CA51, 2001-Ohio-2620 ; State v. Cooper , Muskingum App. No. CT2001-0013, 2001-Ohio-1676 ; State v. Parsons (Aug. 17, 2001), Huron App. No. H-00-042.

2002See, e.g. , State v. Tillery , Cuyahoga App. No. 79166, 2002-Ohio-1587 ; State v. Childs (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 389 , 395 ; State v. Wilkerson (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 861 ; State v. Gerhardt , Clark App. No. 00CA0090, 2001-Ohio-1470 ; State v. Scott , Logan App. No. 8-2000-26, 2001-Ohio-2107 ; State v. Hood , Washington App. No. 00CA51, 2001-Ohio-2620 ; State v. Cooper , Muskingum App. No. CT2001-0013, 2001-Ohio-1676 ; State v. Parsons (Aug. 17, 2001), Huron App. No. H-00-042.