State v. Brown, 2013 Ohio 2665

On Sept. 3, 2011, the EuroGyro "chuck wagon" was robbed at gunpoint by a masked man; only the lower face was obscured and the robber appeared dressed like a basketball player.
Eyewitness Benjamin Poole described the robber as a Black male, shorter than Poole (≈5'6"–5'7"), ~170–180 lbs; Poole did not identify anyone in a photo array and later testified he did not think Brown was the robber.
Police investigated nearby recent arrests and learned Robert Brown had been arrested twice within a block of the robbery while in possession of a firearm; Brown is left-handed, about 5'11", and has tattoos.
Forensic video analysis by Detective Klein noted possible matching features (right-thumb curvature and potential left-arm tattoo shadows) but could not definitively conclude the tattoos or thumb curvature matched Brown; Brown’s expert found dissimilarities.
A stipulated polygraph of Brown indicated deception but the State conceded polygraph evidence only serves to corroborate or impeach rather than prove an element.
Brown was convicted at bench trial of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification; the Ninth District reversed on manifest-weight grounds and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove Brown was the robber	State: video features, Brown’s proximity, prior firearm arrests, tattoos/thumb curvature and polygraph support a reasonable inference of identity	Brown: eyewitness failed to ID him, physical disparities (height/build), tattoo/video dissimilarities, expert disagreement	Sufficiency: affirmed — evidence could allow a factfinder to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: combined testimonial and video evidence supports conviction	Brown: evidence weighs against conviction — eyewitness doubts, size/tattoo differences, inconclusive video, expert conflict, polygraph not proof	Manifest weight: reversed — this is an exceptional case where conviction is against the manifest weight; new trial ordered
Admissibility of other-acts evidence (Evid.R. 404(B))	State: introduced Brown’s prior firearm-related arrests as investigative leads	Brown: such testimony was improper other-acts evidence	Not reached on merits — issue rendered moot by reversal (court declined to address)

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest weight reviews)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review and jury inference rules)
State v. Heinish, 50 Ohio St.3d 231 (Ohio 1990) (courts cannot fill evidentiary gaps on essential elements)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986) (articulates test for weighing evidence and reversing for manifest miscarriage of justice)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (manifest-weight reversal reserved for exceptional cases)
State v. Souel, 53 Ohio St.2d 123 (Ohio 1978) (limits use of polygraph testimony to corroboration or impeachment)
State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202 (Ohio 2009) (appellate review considers all evidence presented when assessing sufficiency)
Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1988) (federal precedent on considering evidence in sufficiency review)