State v. Balfour, 2012 Ohio 3453

Balfour was charged in July 2010 with two counts of criminal nonsupport under R.C. 2919.21(A)(2) for periods 4/1/2006–3/31/2008 and 4/1/2008–3/31/2010, with a 26-week deficiency over 104 weeks attached to each count.
CSEA evidence showed an initial support order of $232.53/month (imputed income) issued in 2004; Balfour largely failed to pay, with five payments totaling $415 during the second period.
A juvenile court contempt proceeding in August 2008 found Balfour in contempt and arrears of $8,691.61, with a 30-day jail sentence suspended.
Evidence from employers showed limited earnings (AutoZone 2005–2006; Subway and Dave’s 2007–2008) and that Balfour missed payments or provided minimal sums; he testified to homelessness and a lack of documented job-search efforts.
Balfour was convicted on both counts and sentenced to five years of community control sanctions on each count; the sole assignment of error claimed the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The defense urged an affirmative defense under R.C. 2919.21(D) that he was unable to provide adequate support, but could still provide what was within his ability and means.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Manifest weight of the evidence	Balfour argues the verdicts weigh against the evidence	Balfour contends he showed inability but attempted to provide support	Convictions not against weight; affirmed

State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (2007-Ohio-2202) (defers to jury on credibility; manifest weight review is narrow)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (thirteenth juror concept in weight review)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (exceptional case where weight favors the defendant)
State v. Dawson, 2012-Ohio-627 () (review of manifest weight with jury credibility findings)
State v. Brown, 5 Ohio App.3d 220 (1982) (affirmative defense requires proof of inability and effort)