Marion v. Cendol
2013 Ohio 3197
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- City alleged Cendol violated demolition permit specs at 333 Joseph St.; permit issued Apr 19, 2010 to Cendol, with blank expiration/date fields.
- 333 Joseph, LLC owned the property; Rosenfeld was owner/principal.
- Cendol testified Rosenfeld authorized him to obtain the permit and oversee demolition.
- City issued permit to Cendol; the director testified Cendol was in charge of demolition.
- magistrate found beyond reasonable doubt; trial court adopted; Cendol appealed.
- Issue of whether permit was valid and whether Cendol was owner or duly constituted agent determined on sufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Cendol the owner or duly constituted agent? | City: Rosenfeld appointed Cendol; permit issued to Cendol. | Cendol: not owner or agent; insufficient proof. | Sufficiency supported; Cendol proved as duly constituted agent. |
| Was Crim.R. 29 motion properly denied given permit validity and notice issues? | Evidence showed violation of permit specs. | Permit lacked expiration; notice and identification flaws. | Crim.R. 29 denial affirmed; evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1981) (sufficiency review standard (Bridgeman context))
- State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (1978) (sufficiency standard for Crim.R. 29 as to reasonable doubt elements)
- Bd. of Twp. Trustees v. Spring Creek Gravel Co., Inc., 45 Ohio App.2d 288 (1975) (ministerial act; permit grant not invalidated by delay in recording)
- Parker v. State, 68 Ohio St.3d 283 (1994) (presumed knowledge of the law; evidentiary considerations)