State v. Barber, 2017 Ohio 7904

In 2014–2015 Edward J. Barber and Yvette Faison, former partners with two children together, had a deteriorating relationship; Faison stopped allowing Barber in her house after April 2015 when she received a threatening voicemail from him.
Barber left a voicemail threatening to kill Faison if he could not see his children; Faison told him she would seek a protective order and cut off contact.
On June 10, 2015, at ~2:30 a.m., Barber came to Faison’s home, banged on the front door and window, broke the front-room window, and entered the house through it; he told Faison “I am going to jail for murder tonight.”
Faison fled to her sister’s house across the street; Barber followed and was arrested nearby; police observed Barber bleeding from a hand cut.
A grand jury indicted Barber for aggravated burglary; a jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated burglary and the trial court sentenced him.
On appeal Barber challenged (1) sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence and (2) the sentence as vindictive and unsupported (trial court found the offense motivated by gender-based prejudice).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted aggravated burglary	State: testimony and voicemail support that Barber entered by force into an occupied structure with intent to harm Faison	Barber: no evidence he entered the house; at most he sought to see his children	Held: Sufficient evidence — witnesses testified he entered via broken window and threats/behavior supported criminal purpose
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: jury reasonably credited Faison and her daughter over Barber; timing, threats, and conduct showed criminal purpose	Barber: jury lost its way; his purpose was to see his children, not to commit a crime	Held: Not against manifest weight — jury credibility determinations upheld; evidence did not weigh heavily against conviction
Privilege to enter (consent defense)	State: Faison had revoked permission before the incident	Barber: he had been allowed in previously and was privileged to visit his children	Held: No privilege — Faison testified she denied him permission and had ended contact before the incident
Sentencing: finding of gender-based prejudice and alleged vindictiveness	State: court may consider offender motivation including gender bias under R.C. 2929.12(B)(8); record supports finding	Barber: sentence was vindictive and the record does not support a prejudice finding	Held: No vindictiveness; court permissibly considered gender-motivated conduct and the record supports the finding; sentence affirmed

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (defined sufficiency and manifest-weight distinctions)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (Ohio 2001) (appellate deference to jury verdicts)
State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248 (Ohio 2002) (criminal attempt and substantial-step analysis)
State v. Woods, 48 Ohio St.2d 127 (Ohio 1976) (criminal attempt explanation)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (deference to factfinder on witness credibility)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)