manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard in Ohio

2026When considering a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, this court reviews the entire record and “‘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 of justice that the conviction must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.’” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 , quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).

2026As such, a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence challenge will be sustained “‘“only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.”’” State v. Dodson, 2025-Ohio-1733, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), quoting Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).

2026A manifest-weight-of-the- evidence challenge “addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing belief,” i.e., “whose evidence is more persuasive — the state’s or the defendant’s?” State v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-2202 , ¶ 25, citing Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 386-387.

2026When considering a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, this court reviews the entire record and “‘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 of justice that the conviction must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.’” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 , quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).

2024As the court explained in Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984): “The underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests with the knowledge that the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.” Moreover, deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility is “crucial in a child custody case, where there may be much evident in the 2 Although appellant’s assignment of error mentions the sufficiency

2022Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978), syllabus. {¶9} “‘“[W]hen reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the- evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier -7- Case No. 13-21-09 of fact are correct.”’” Id. at ¶ 10, quoting Warnecke at ¶ 13 , quoting State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , ¶ 24. “‘The rationale for this presumption is that the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the evidence by viewing witnesses and observing their demeanor, voice inflection, and gestures.’” Id., quoting Warnecke at ¶ 13 , citing Seasons Coal Co

2017“While the decision to award support is discretionary, an appellate court reviews the factual findings to support that award under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard.” Wallace v. Wallace, 195 Ohio App.3d 314 , 2011-Ohio-4487, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.).

2017“While the decision to award support is discretionary, an appellate court reviews the factual findings to support that award under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard.” Wallace v. Wallace, 195 Ohio App.3d 314 , 2011-Ohio-4487, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.).

2026As such, a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence challenge will be sustained “‘“only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.”’” State v. Dodson, 2025-Ohio-1733, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), quoting Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).

2026As such, a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence challenge will be sustained “‘“only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.”’” State v. Dodson, 2025-Ohio-1733, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), quoting Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).

2025This is because, unlike the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review, which addresses the state's burden of production, "'a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to the state's burden of persuasion.'" State v. Casey, 2024-Ohio-689, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26 .

2025This is because, unlike the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review, which addresses the state's burden of production, "'a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to the state's burden of persuasion.'" State v. Casey, 2024-Ohio-689, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26 .

2026State v. Whitsett, 2014-Ohio-4933, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.).

2026Analysis A. Standard of Review “A manifest-weight-of-the-evidence challenge attacks the credibility of the evidence presented and questions whether the State met its burden of persuasion.” Berea v. Blackshear, 2025-Ohio-4757, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Whitsett, 2014-Ohio-4933, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.).

2025"To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the 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. Lewis, 2020-Ohio-3762, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.), citing State v. Wilks, 2018-Ohio-1562 , ¶ 168.

2025"To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the 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. Lewis, 2020-Ohio-3762, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.), citing State v. Wilks, 2018- Ohio-1562, ¶ 168.

2024Instead, “a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to the state’s burden of persuasion.” Id. at ¶ 26. {¶8} When considering a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, this Court is required to consider 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 4 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. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9t

2017When analyzing a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, we “weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and 5 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 [decision] must be reversed.” State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). {¶11} At the small claims hearing, United Airlines’ legal representative introduced the company’s Contract of Carriage into evidence.

2026In the case of In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703 , the Supreme Court of Ohio reexplained the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard stating that [w]hen reviewing for manifest weight, the appellate court must weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine 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 v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St. 3d 328 , 2012- Ohio-2179, ¶ 20, 972 N.E.2d 517 ].

2025In the case of In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703 , the Supreme Court of Ohio reexplained the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard stating that [w]hen reviewing for manifest weight, the appellate court must weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine 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 v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20 ].

2026“The weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered in a trial to support one side of the issue rather than the other.” King at ¶ 22 , citing State v. Petty, 2017-Ohio-1062, ¶ 60 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Boone, 2015-Ohio-2648 , ¶ 49 (10th Dist.), citing Thompkins at 387 . {¶ 34} The manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard requires a reviewing court to consider the state’s evidence as an additional or “thirteenth juror.” Frazier at ¶ 23 , citing Elkhabiry at ¶ 37, citing Thompkins at 387 . “ ‘To evaluate a claim that a jury verdict is ag

2026“The weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered in a trial to support one side of the issue rather than the other.” King at ¶ 22 , citing State v. Petty, 2017-Ohio-1062, ¶ 60 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Boone, 2015-Ohio-2648 , ¶ 49 (10th Dist.), citing Thompkins at ¶ 24 . {¶ 20} The manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard requires a reviewing court to consider the state’s evidence as an additional or “thirteenth juror.” Frazier at ¶ 23 , citing No. 23AP-555 7 Elkhabiry at ¶ 37 , citing Thompkins at ¶ 25 . “ ‘ “To evaluate a claim that

2024“Weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered at trial to support one side of the issue over the other; it relates to persuasion and involves the effect of the evidence in inducing belief.” Fox v. Positron Energy Res., Inc., 2017-Ohio-8700, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.), citing Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 2017-Ohio-5716, ¶ 16 (7th Dist.). {¶81} “ ‘In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, we must review the entire record, weigh the Scioto App. No. 22CA3979 30 evidence and all reasonable inferences, [an

2024“Weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered at trial to support one side of the issue over the other; it relates to persuasion and involves the effect of the evidence in inducing belief.” Fox v. Positron Energy Res., Inc., 2017-Ohio-8700, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.), citing Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 2017-Ohio-5716, ¶ 16 (7th Dist.). {¶25} “ ‘In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, we must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, [and] consider the credibility

2024“Weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered at trial to support one side of the issue over the other; it relates to persuasion and involves the effect of the evidence in inducing belief.” Fox v. Positron Energy Res., Inc., 2017-Ohio-8700, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.), citing Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 2017-Ohio-5716, ¶ 16 (7th Dist.). {¶81} “ ‘In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, we must review the entire record, weigh the Scioto App. No. 22CA3979 30 evidence and all reasonable inferences, [an

2024“Weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered at trial to support one side of the issue over the other; it relates to persuasion and involves the effect of the evidence in inducing belief.” Fox v. Positron Energy Res., Inc., 2017-Ohio-8700, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.), citing Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 2017-Ohio-5716, ¶ 16 (7th Dist.). {¶25} “ ‘In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, we must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, [and] consider the credibility

2024“Weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered at trial to support one side of the issue over the other; it relates to persuasion and involves the effect of the evidence in inducing belief.” Fox v. Positron Energy Res., Inc., 2017-Ohio-8700, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.), citing Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 2017-Ohio-5716, ¶ 16 (7th Dist.). {¶81} “ ‘In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, we must review the entire record, weigh the Scioto App. No. 22CA3979 30 evidence and all reasonable inferences, [an

2024“Weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered at trial to support one side of the issue over the other; it relates to persuasion and involves the effect of the evidence in inducing belief.” Fox v. Positron Energy Res., Inc., 2017-Ohio-8700, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.), citing Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 2017-Ohio-5716, ¶ 16 (7th Dist.). {¶25} “ ‘In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, we must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, [and] consider the credibility

2026In undertaking the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence analysis, an appellate court 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 v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20 , quoting Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103, 115 (9th Dist.2001). {¶ 62} But we review the trial court's decision to make or not make a distributive award to compens

2026In the case of In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703 , the Supreme Court of Ohio reexplained the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard stating that [w]hen reviewing for manifest weight, the appellate court must weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine 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 v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St. 3d 328 , 2012- Ohio-2179, ¶ 20, 972 N.E.2d 517 ].

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

2025This is because, unlike the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review, which addresses the state's burden of production, "'a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to the state's burden of persuasion.'" State v. Casey, 2024-Ohio-689, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26 .

2026Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280 (1978). {¶26} “‘[W]hen reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the- evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct.’” Warnecke at ¶ 13, quoting State v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-2202 , ¶ 24.

2026Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 280 (1978). {¶16} “‘[W]hen reviewing a judgment under a manifest-weight-of-the- evidence standard, a court has an obligation to presume that the findings of the trier of fact are correct.’” Warnecke at ¶ 13, quoting State v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-2202 , ¶ 24.

2026A manifest-weight-of-the-evidence analysis considers the overall weight of all of the 5 This court has described “circumstantial evidence” as “proof of certain facts or circumstances in a given case, from which the trier of fact may infer other connected facts that would reasonably follow.” State v. Gaines, 2003-Ohio-6855, ¶ 55 (8th Dist.). evidence, see Brown, 2025-Ohio-2804 . at ¶ 30, and, as noted above, there is substantial circumstantial evidence implicating Frazier as the shooter.

2025In a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, sitting as the “thirteenth juror,” the court “looks at the entire record and “‘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 of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’”” State v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-2804, ¶ 30 , quoting Thompkins at ¶ 25, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).

2022Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶ 28} We review the probate court’s justifiable-cause determination under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard.

2022Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶ 28} We review the probate court’s justifiable-cause determination under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard.

2024No. 19AP-879, 2021-Ohio-2044, ¶ 44-45 (“[T]he sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to [a party’s] burden of production and a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to [a party’s] burden of persuasion.”). {¶ 42} “A court’s main objective in applying a statute is to determine and give effect to the legislative intent.” Stewart v. Vivian, 151 Ohio St.3d 574 , 2017-Ohio-7526, ¶ 23 .

2022As the Tenth District aptly explained, the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to Messenger’s burden of production and a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to the state’s burden of persuasion. 2021-Ohio-2044 , 174 N.E.3d 425, at ¶ 44-45 ; see also Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 390 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (Cook, J., concurring) (a sufficiency challenge disputes whether a party “met its burden of production at trial,” and a manifest-weight challenge disputes whether a party “carried its burden of persuasion”).

2024A manifest-weight-of-the-evidence challenge “addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing belief. * * * In other words, a reviewing court asks whose evidence is more persuasive — the state’s or the defendant’s?” State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , ¶ 25.

2024Manifest Weight of the Evidence In his fourth assignment of error, Graham argues that “multiple inconsistencies and pervasive credibility issues plaguing Martinez’s testimony render the trier of fact’s decision against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Specifically, Graham argues that Martinez’s testimony is inconsistent with the police officer’s body-camera videos showing that she “failed to comply with the officers’ initial commands” and that he “did not immediately grab Martinez by the neck * * *.” A manifest-weight-of-the-evidence challenge “addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing

2026“The weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered in a trial to support one side of the issue rather than the other.” King at ¶ 22 , citing State v. Petty, 2017-Ohio-1062, ¶ 60 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Boone, 2015-Ohio-2648 , ¶ 49 (10th Dist.), citing Thompkins at 387 . {¶ 34} The manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard requires a reviewing court to consider the state’s evidence as an additional or “thirteenth juror.” Frazier at ¶ 23 , citing Elkhabiry at ¶ 37, citing Thompkins at 387 . “ ‘To evaluate a claim that a jury verdict is ag

2026“The weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered in a trial to support one side of the issue rather than the other.” King at ¶ 22 , citing State v. Petty, 2017-Ohio-1062, ¶ 60 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Boone, 2015-Ohio-2648 , ¶ 49 (10th Dist.), citing Thompkins at ¶ 24 . {¶ 20} The manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard requires a reviewing court to consider the state’s evidence as an additional or “thirteenth juror.” Frazier at ¶ 23 , citing No. 23AP-555 7 Elkhabiry at ¶ 37 , citing Thompkins at ¶ 25 . “ ‘ “To evaluate a claim that

2026To warrant reversal from a bench trial under a manifest- weight-of-the-evidence claim, this court must determine that “‘the trial court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’” State v. Crenshaw, 2020-Ohio-4922, ¶ 23 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Bell, 2019-Ohio-340, ¶ 41 .

2025To warrant reversal from a bench trial under a manifest-weight-of-the- evidence claim, this court must determine that “the trial court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Crenshaw at id.

2024Athens No. 04CA10, 2004-Ohio-3146, ¶ 7 . {¶55} The question that an appellate court must resolve when reviewing a permanent-custody decision under the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard is “whether the juvenile court’s findings * * * were supported by clear and convincing evidence.” In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 , 2008-Ohio-4825 , 895 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 43 .

2024Athens No. 04CA10, 2004-Ohio-3146, ¶ 7 . {¶27} The question that an appellate court must resolve when reviewing a permanent custody decision under the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard is Hocking App. Nos. 23CA18 and 23CA19 10 “whether the juvenile court’s findings * * * were supported by clear and convincing evidence.” In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 , 2008-Ohio-4825 , 895 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 43 .