sufficiency of evidence test in Ohio

2023State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 . {¶94} In contrast to the sufficiency of evidence analysis, when reviewing a weight of the evidence argument, the appellate court reviews the entire record, weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts of evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

2021State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 . {¶26} As opposed to the sufficiency of evidence analysis, when reviewing a weight of the evidence argument, the appellate court reviews the entire record, weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts of evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 00038 9 created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

2009We will first address the telecommunications-harassment conviction. {¶ 6} As to reviewing the trial court’s decision under the sufficiency-of-evidence standard, “[a]n appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average *629 mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 , paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on oth

2009The Bridgeman standard must be viewed in light of the sufficiency of evidence test set forth in State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , at paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds in State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 .

2012R. 29(A), a court shall not order an entry of judgment of acquittal if the evidence is such that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (1978), syllabus. {¶10} This court has previously found that the Bridgeman standard “must be viewed in light of the sufficiency of evidence test * * *.” State v. Foster, 3d Dist.

2008R. 29(A) provides that a court must order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of a charged offense "if the evidence in insufficient to *Page 5 sustain a conviction of such offense[.]" However, "a court shall not order an entry of judgment of acquittal if the evidence is such that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Bridgeman (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 , syllabus. {¶ 10} The Bridgeman standard must be viewed in light of the sufficiency of evidence test set forth in S

2006Rather, the sufficiency of evidence test "gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307 , 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 .

2006Rather, the sufficiency of evidence test "gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307 , 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 .

1999A ‘reasonable probability’ of a different result is accordingly shown when the * * * evidentiary suppression ‘undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial * * *.’ “ * * * Bagley materiality * * * is not a sufficiency of evidence test. * * * One does not show [materiality] by demonstrating that some of the inculpatory evidence should have been excluded, but by showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Id., 514 U.S. at 434-435 , 115 S.Ct. at 1566 , 131 L.Ed.2d at 506 .

1999A ‘reasonable probability’ of a different result is accordingly shown when the * * * evidentiary suppression ‘undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial * * *.’ “ * * * Bagley materiality * * * is not a sufficiency of evidence test. * * * One does not show [materiality] by demonstrating that some of the inculpatory evidence should have been excluded, but by showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Id., 514 U.S. at 434-435 , 115 S.Ct. at 1566 , 131 L.Ed.2d at 506 .

2015Seneca No. 13-12-42, 2013-Ohio-1735, ¶ 35 , quoting State v. Foster, 3d Dist.

2014Seneca No. 13-12-42, 2013-Ohio-1735, ¶ 35 , quoting State v. Foster, 3d Dist.

2013No. 7-11-02, 2012-Ohio-406, ¶ 23 , quoting State v. Foster, 3d Dist.

2012No. 7-11-02, 2012-Ohio-406, ¶ 23 , quoting State v. Foster, 3d Dist.

2002A `reasonable probability' of a different result is accordingly shown when the government's evidentiary suppression `undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.' Bagley , 473 U.S. at 678 , 105 S.Ct. at 3381 . {¶ 61} "The second aspect of Bagley materiality bearing emphasis here is that it is not a sufficiency of evidence test.

1998A "reasonable probability" of a different result is accordingly shown when the Government's evidentiary suppression "undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial." Bagley , 473 U.S. at 678 * * *. "`The second aspect of Bagley materiality bearing emphasis here is that it is not a sufficiency of evidence test.

2023In Messenger, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4562 , the Supreme Court of Ohio recently addressed the issue of whether self-defense claims are subject to review under a sufficiency of evidence standard on direct appeal.

2020"In determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law, '[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. Robinson, 124 Ohio St.3d 76 , 2009-Ohio- 5937, ¶ 34, quoting Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 52} When reviewing a case under a sufficiency of evidence standard, we do not weigh witnesses' credibility but presume that the state's wit

2016State v. Woullard, 158 Ohio App.3d 31 , 2004-Ohio- 3395, 813 N.E. 2d 964 (2d Dist.).

2015State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224, 226 (1994), citing State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236 (1975) and State v. Berndt, 29 Ohio St.3d 3 (1987).

2015State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224, 226 (1994), citing State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236 (1975) and State v. Berndt, 29 Ohio St.3d 3 (1987).

2009State v. Edwards , 3d Dist. *Page 11 No. 9-03-63, 2004-Ohio-4015 .

2009Lovejoy, 79 Ohio St.3d at 449 , 683 N.E.2d 1112 .

2009Lovejoy, 79 Ohio St.3d at 449 , 683 N.E.2d 1112 .

2007State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , 80 , 24 O.O.3d 150 , 434 N.E.2d 1356 .

2007State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , 80 , 24 O.O.3d 150 , 434 N.E.2d 1356 .

2006State v. Gaul (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 839 . {¶ 75} In the Gaul case, the state of Ohio had prosecuted the county treasurer for dereliction of duty on three different bases: that he violated his fiduciary duty to safeguard public funds; that he failed to properly monitor his deputies; and that he failed to maintain and properly manage documents evidencing the county's investments. {¶ 76} With respect to the first basis, the court held the fiduciary duty to preserve public monies was merely implied, not expressed, by applicable law: {¶ 77} "[t]hese fiduciary duties to preserve public moneys cann

2006Rudd further explained the federal rule: {¶ 34} “[T]his sufficiency-of-basis inquiry is formally quite distinct from the sufficiency-of-evidence inquiry involved in summary-judgment analysis, that is, Rule 702 mandates a determination of whether the expert had sufficient evidence (evidence which itself may or may not be admissible) to support his or her testimony, not a determination of whether that testimony standing alone provides sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable fact-finder to find for the plaintiff on an issue of substantive law.” Rudd, 127 F.Supp.2d at 1337 . {¶ 35} When an exper

2004State v. Wolfe (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 215 , 216 . {¶ 17} The relevant inquiry when addressing a sufficiency of evidence claim 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.

1995It has been said that the weight of the evidence standard and the sufficiency of evidence standard are synonymous, e.g., Rohde v. Farmer (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 82 , 52 O.O.2d 376 , 262 N.E.2d 685 .

1995It has been said that the weight of the evidence standard and the sufficiency of evidence standard are synonymous, e.g., Rohde v. Farmer (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 82 , 52 O.O.2d 376 , 262 N.E.2d 685 .