Cleveland v. Imrie, 2021 Ohio 308

Defendant Justin Imrie was in the women’s restroom of an apartment building lobby; security guard S. Farrier entered an adjacent stall, undressed, and observed a hand holding a cellphone protruding under the neighboring stall.
Farrier recorded the conduct on her phone; the video shows Imrie moving a phone left-right and up-down at the barrier of her stall while she used the toilet.
Police interviewed Imrie; he claimed intoxication, thought he was in the men’s room, may have been looking at his phone, or fell asleep and only moved his shoulder—he denied intent to record for sexual arousal.
Imrie was charged with voyeurism under R.C. 2907.08(B); after a bench trial the court convicted him, imposed a suspended 90‑day jail term, five years’ probation, AA attendance, and Tier I sex‑offender registration.
On appeal Imrie challenged (1) sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence and (2) that the state failed to present a legal theory of criminal trespass or proof he knew he was in the women’s restroom.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency and manifest weight of evidence to support voyeurism conviction	Farrier’s video and testimony directly show Imrie moved his phone to record; sexual purpose can be inferred from conduct	Imrie was intoxicated, fell asleep, lacked intent and could not have been sexually aroused; police never examined his phone	Video and testimony provided direct and circumstantial evidence from which the trier of fact could infer purpose of sexual arousal; court affirmed conviction and found no manifest miscarriage of justice
Whether the state had to prove criminal trespass or Imrie’s knowledge he was in women’s restroom	Voyeurism requires proof of trespass or a surreptitious invasion of privacy; the state proved a surreptitious invasion (recording a person in a stall)	Intoxication meant he did not know he was in the women’s restroom, so criminal trespass/theory fails	The state need not prove criminal trespass or that defendant knew he was in the women’s restroom; proof of an unauthorized, surreptitious invasion of privacy to record another in a state of nudity is sufficient

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for sufficiency review and distinction between sufficiency and manifest weight)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (Jackson/Jenks standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (2004) (application of Jenks sufficiency test)
State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79 (1982) (manifest‑weight review requires examining credibility and weighing the evidence)
State v. Heinish, 50 Ohio St.3d 231 (1990) (circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction if it convinces the average mind beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Huffman, 165 Ohio App.3d 518 (2006) (conduct may permit an inference of sexual purpose absent an innocent explanation)