State v. Bandedo
2017 Ohio 1301
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Tony Bandedo purchased a 2012 Toyota Camry with a substantial loan and GAP insurance; he traded in a pickup with negative equity.
- On December 8, 2013 the car was taken using the valet key from the glovebox, driven to a remote location, doused with gasoline and set on fire; nothing was stolen and the fire department reported arson.
- An informant (Steve Osterholt), a former employee, told police Bandedo offered $300 to have the car burned, then cooperated with police by making two surreptitious audio recordings of conversations with Bandedo.
- Recordings contained statements by Bandedo that the car loss was "his fault," references suggesting payment to "Kenny" and use of "regular" gasoline, and expressions of regret; phone records show contacts between Bandedo and Kenny Kniess on the day of the fire.
- Bandedo was indicted for arson under R.C. 2909.03(A)(4), tried by jury, found guilty, sentenced to five years of community control, and post-verdict motions for acquittal and a new trial were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bandedo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Bandedo hired someone to commit arson | Recordings, Osterholt’s testimony, forensic evidence (valet key used, gasoline residue), phone contacts with Kniess support guilty inference | Statements in recordings are ambiguous and subject to innocent explanations; circumstantial evidence does not exclude theft or other explanations | Guilty verdict upheld — evidence sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find guilt |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State argues jury reasonably credited State witnesses and recordings over Defendant’s explanations | Bandedo contends jury lost its way given plausible innocent interpretations of recorded statements and other facts | Court held jury did not lose its way; verdict not against manifest weight |
| Trial court’s use of an Allen-style (Howard) charge after jury reported 6-6 split | State: charge encouraged further deliberation without coercion; counsel agreed to the instruction | Bandedo: charge was coercive and foreclosed possibility of hung jury, requiring new trial | No error — defendant agreed to the charge, did not object, and the charge substantially complied with Howard; no prejudice shown |
| Motion for new trial based on irregularity (6-6 split) and insufficiency | State: no irregularity; charge proper; evidence sufficient | Bandedo: 6-6 note and court’s instruction created irregularity; evidence insufficient | Motion denied — court properly handled deadlock, evidence sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (establishes Ohio sufficiency-of-evidence standard) (Jenks is cited for the standard of review on sufficiency)
- State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421 (discusses appellate deference to jury factfinding and reasonable minds standard)
- State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18 (approves balanced alternative to traditional Allen charge due to coercion concerns)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (defines manifest-miscarriage-of-justice standard for weight challenges)