evidence is the legal standard in Ohio

2024Cuyahoga No. 103615, 2016-Ohio-5410, ¶ 7 . “[A]n appellate court reviews a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for acquittal using the same standard it applies when reviewing a sufficiency-of-the- evidence claim.” Id. “‘Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict.’” State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316 , ¶ 23, quoting State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 113 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997). “‘[W]hen reviewin

2024Cuyahoga No. 103615, 2016-Ohio-5410, ¶ 7 . “[A]n appellate court reviews a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for acquittal using the same standard it applies when reviewing a sufficiency-of-the- evidence claim.” Id. “‘Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict.’” State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316 , ¶ 23, quoting State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 113 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997). “‘[W]hen reviewin

2005"Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict * * *." State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , 113 , following Thompkins, supra. "When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, the relevant inquiry is whether any rational factfinder, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Clemons (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 438 , 444 , fo

2005"Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict * * *." State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , 113 , following Thompkins, supra. "When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, the relevant inquiry is whether any rational factfinder, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Clemons (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 438 , 444 , fo

2005"Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict * * *." State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , 113 , following Thompkins, supra. "When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, the relevant inquiry is whether any rational factfinder, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Clemons (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 438 , 444 , fo

2005"The verdict will not be disturbed unless the appellate court finds that reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier of fact." Clemons, supra. {¶ 24} Defendant was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor under R.C. 2907.04 .

2004Id. {¶ 12} "Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict * * *." State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , 113 , certiorari denied, 523 U.S. 1125 , 118 S.Ct. 1811 , following State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 386 .

2002"Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict." State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , 113 , certiorari denied (1998), 523 U.S. 1125 , 118 S.Ct. 1811 .

2004Id. {¶ 12} "Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict * * *." State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , 113 , certiorari denied, 523 U.S. 1125 , 118 S.Ct. 1811 , following State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 386 .

2002"Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict." State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , 113 , certiorari denied (1998), 523 U.S. 1125 , 118 S.Ct. 1811 .

2004"When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, the relevant inquiry is whether any rational factfinder, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Clemons (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 438 , 444 , certiorari denied, 525 U.S. 1277 , 119 S.Ct. 816 , following Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307 , 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 2789 , and State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

2001"When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, the relevant inquiry is whether any rational factfinder, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Clemons (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 438 , 444 , certiorari denied 525 U.S. 1077 , 119 S.Ct. 816 .

2001"When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, the relevant inquiry is whether any rational factfinder, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Clemons (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 438 , 444 , certiorari denied 525 U.S. 1077 , 119 S.Ct. 816 .

2001"When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, the relevant inquiry is whether any rational factfinder, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Clemons (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 438 , 444 , certiorari denied 525 U.S. 1077 , 119 S.Ct. 816 .

2026We disagree. {¶ 90} “ ‘Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict.’ ” State v. McFarland, 2020-Ohio-3343, ¶ 23 , quoting State v. Smith, 1997-Ohio-355, ¶ 97 .

2024Cuyahoga No. 103615, 2016-Ohio-5410, ¶ 7 . “[A]n appellate court reviews a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for acquittal using the same standard it applies when reviewing a sufficiency-of-the- evidence claim.” Id. “‘Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict.’” State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316 , ¶ 23, quoting State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 113 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997). “‘[W]hen reviewin

2013State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 386, 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2012I believe there was sufficient evidence to support Miller’s assault on a peace officer conviction, and would affirm the conviction and 18-month sentence. {¶23} “Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2026In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must determine “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. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in Smith, 1997-Ohio-355, at ¶ 49, fn. 4 . “[A]n appellate court does not ask whether the evidence should be believed but, rather, whether the evidence, ‘if believed,

2024In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must determine “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. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in, Smith at 102, fn. 4 . “[A]n appellate court does not ask whether the evidence should be believed but, rather, whether the evidence, ‘if believed, would convin

2010Perrysburg v. Miller, 153 Ohio App.3d 665 , 2003-Ohio-4221, at ¶57 . {¶14} Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict.

2010Perrysburg v. Miller, 153 Ohio App.3d 665 , 2003-Ohio-4221, at ¶57 . {¶14} Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict.

2026In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must determine “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. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in Smith, 1997-Ohio-355, at ¶ 49, fn. 4 . “[A]n appellate court does not ask whether the evidence should be believed but, rather, whether the evidence, ‘if believed,

2025Id. {¶47} Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict.

2023State v. Thompson, 127 Ohio App.3d 511, 525 , 713 N.E.2d 456 (8th Dist.1998). {¶47} Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict.

2023State v. Thompson, 127 Ohio App.3d 511, 525 , 713 N.E.2d 456 (8th Dist.1998). {¶47} Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict.

2022Mahoning No. 20 MA 97, 2018-Ohio-983 , ¶ 11 citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). {¶68} Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a Case No. 21 JE 0020 – 24 – matter of law to support the verdict.

2022No. 17AP-382, 2018-Ohio-3942, ¶ 15 , citing Thompkins at 386 .

2021No. 06AP-160, 2006-Ohio-5042, ¶ 15 . {¶ 17} Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard that tests whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally adequate to support a verdict.

2018Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). {¶5} “‘“[T]he relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ (Emphasis sic.) State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280, 289 , 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).” State v. Beasley, ___N.E.3d ___, 2018- Ohi

2018Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). {¶5} “‘“[T]he relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ (Emphasis sic.) State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280, 289 , 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).” State v. Beasley, ___N.E.3d ___, 2018- Ohi

2018Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). {¶5} “‘“[T]he relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ (Emphasis sic.) State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 280, 289 , 731 N.E.2d 159 (2000), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).” State v. Beasley, ___N.E.3d ___, 2018- Ohi

2018Eastley v. Volkman , 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , citing State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

2018Eastley v. Volkman , 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , citing State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

2015State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123, 138 , 694 N.E.2d 916 (1998). {¶10} A conviction cannot be reversed on grounds of sufficiency unless the reviewing court determines that no rational juror could have found the elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

2015State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123, 138 , 694 N.E.2d 916 (1998). {¶10} A conviction cannot be reversed on grounds of sufficiency unless the reviewing court determines that no rational juror could have found the elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

2005State v. Hauenstein (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 511 . {¶ 33} Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case should have gone to the jury.

2004Id. {¶ 12} "Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict * * *." State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , 113 , certiorari denied, 523 U.S. 1125 , 118 S.Ct. 1811 , following State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 386 .

2003Dean testified John's death was caused by multiple gunshot wounds to his torso that went through his lungs and heart. {¶ 27} Appellant's first assignment of error contends that the evidence supporting his conviction for aggravated murder was insufficient to sustain a conviction and was not supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. 3 {¶ 28} "Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine whether the case should have gone to the jury." State v. Jones, Franklin App. No. 02AP-1390, 2003-Ohio-5994 , citing State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 386 .