State v. Banfield
2021 Ohio 2160
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Jeremie Banfield was indicted for attempted burglary (R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) and R.C. 2923.02(A)) based on an August 15, 2019 incident at a neighbor’s house where an unknown man was seen peering into a back sliding door.
- Victim observed a man (later identified from a Facebook photo as Banfield) peering through the inner glass door from an outer screened deck door; the outer screened door had been opened and its locked mechanism appeared forced.
- A neighbor’s surveillance video showed the neighbor (Brandi Basch), who lived with Banfield, at the victim’s front area and then briefly out of view behind the garage; the video did not show Banfield but suggested someone approached from a different direction than the street view.
- Police could not obtain usable fingerprints or DNA; Banfield later made a jail call in which a voice appearing to be his said, in substance, that ‘‘it was him there.’'
- Banfield was tried to the bench, found guilty, and sentenced to 30 months. The written sentencing entry mistakenly recites a guilty plea and a presentence report; the court remanded for a nunc pro tunc correction of clerical errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support attempt/burglary conviction | State: Circumstantial evidence (peering, opened locked screen door, approach from obscured direction, neighbor activity, jail call) permits inference of specific intent to commit a crime. | Banfield: No direct evidence of intent to commit a criminal offense once inside; evidence insufficient. | Court: Overruled. Viewing evidence most favorably to State, a rational trier of fact could infer the requisite intent. |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: Evidence collectively supports conviction; inferences reasonable. | Banfield: Conduct was consistent with innocent explanations; verdict contrary to weight of evidence. | Court: Overruled. After independent review, the court did not find a miscarriage of justice. |
| Whether the trial court improperly considered defendant’s silence | State: Trial court’s comments were part of broader rationale and did not penalize Banfield for silence. | Banfield: Court relied on his failure to explain his presence to police, violating Fifth Amendment. | Court: Overruled. Remarks were isolated, ambiguous, and insufficient to constitute reversible error. |
| Whether the court considered extrajudicial information at sentencing | State: Court reviewed discovery (which included Banfield’s criminal record) and materials in the record; no impermissible extrajudicial reliance. | Banfield: Court relied on the State’s discovery file and other extrajudicial material, producing a more punitive sentence. | Court: Overruled. Sentencing relied on material in the court record (criminal history); no plain error shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sets Ohio standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (describes appellate review for manifest weight of the evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (explains the limited circumstances for reversing on manifest-weight grounds)
- State v. Leach, 102 Ohio St.3d 135 (pre-arrest silence cannot be used as substantive evidence of guilt)
- State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 (addresses procedural forfeiture and plain-error review at sentencing)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (discusses appellate role when weighing conflicting evidence)