Middle Hts. v. Troyan, 2017 Ohio 7073

Miriam Troyan was convicted in Berea Municipal Court of two counts of violating Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(C) (dog at large), both minor misdemeanors, after bench trials.
Neighbor Celeste Heyworth and mail carrier Nicholas Skladany testified the dog repeatedly ran loose and escaped through a hole in a shared fence.
Heyworth observed Troyan attempt to retrieve the dog on foot and later by car; a surveillance video showed the dog escaping through the fence hole.
The city prosecuted; Troyan moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29 after the evidence and argued the statute required mens rea under R.C. 2901.20.
The trial court found Troyan guilty on both charges; she appealed arguing (1) the court failed to find the requisite mens rea and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 955.22(C) requires a degree of mens rea or is strict liability	City: statute imposes strict liability to protect public safety	Troyan: R.C. 2901.20 requires new offenses to specify mens rea, so 955.22 should not be treated as strict liability	Court: 955.22 is not a "new" offense post‑2901.20 and remains a strict liability offense; mens rea not required
Whether evidence was sufficient to deny Crim.R. 29 motion (sufficiency of proof owner failed to confine/control dog)	City: testimony and video showed dog escaped through hole in Troyan’s fence and was uncontrolled	Troyan: no evidence who was keeping/harboring or who allowed escape at the moment of escape	Court: evidence (eyewitnesses + video + fence hole + attempts to catch dog) was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Gates Mills v. Welsh, 146 Ohio App.3d 368, 766 N.E.2d 204 (8th Dist. 2001) (holding R.C. 955.22 imposes strict liability to protect public safety)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (sufficiency of the evidence standard for criminal convictions)