State v. Arnold, 2016 Ohio 7047

Defendant Kathleen A. Arnold was charged with second-degree burglary (R.C. 2911.12(A)(2)) and petty theft after police responded to a silent tattletale motion sensor activation at the Toazes' home.
The Toazes had experienced prior money thefts from a home office and had installed silent sensors; on the day in question officers discovered Arnold leaving as the alarm had activated.
Rolls of coins with account numbers matching the Toazes’ coin rolls were found hidden in Arnold’s car; the Toazes testified they had not paid Arnold with rolled coins previously.
Arnold admitted being at the house to discuss cleaning services but denied stealing the coins, claiming she kept coins in her car for safety.
The trial court convicted Arnold of burglary and misdemeanor theft; the court imposed one year of community control sanctions. Arnold appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved the element that a person was "present or likely to be present" at the habitation when the trespass occurred	The Toazes were not shown to be regularly absent; occupants (Margaret or Patricia O’Neill) could reasonably be expected to be present when a cleaner arrived, so it was objectively likely someone could be present	No evidence showed that an occupant was likely to be present; Margaret had told Arnold not to come that day and there was no proof of a regular presence	Court held the evidence supported an objective finding that a person was likely to be present; sufficiency and weight challenges fail
Whether the trial court was required to make specific element-by-element findings in a bench verdict	The general guilty finding sufficed under Crim.R. 23(C) when the record supports the elements	The court erred by not expressly finding the "likely to be present" element	Court held Crim.R. 23(C) requires only a general finding in a bench trial; specific recitation of each element is not required

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
State v. Kirby, 50 Ohio St.2d 21 (1977) (occupants "in and out" and temporarily absent can satisfy "likely to be present")
State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (2007) (weight-of-evidence framing and standards)
State v. Green, 18 Ohio App.3d 69 (10th Dist. 1984) (definition of "likely to be present" as an objective inquiry)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1983) (articulating manifest-miscarriage-of-justice standard for weight review)