State v. Bryant, 2017 Ohio 4107

Appellant Kejuan Bryant was convicted in Toledo Municipal Court of Using Weapons While Intoxicated (R.C. 2923.15) and Discharge of Firearm on Prohibited Premises (R.C. 2923.162(A)(2)); sentence suspended with one year active probation and community service. Appeal to Sixth District affirmed.
Police responded to 911 calls reporting shots fired near Elmdale Road/South Avenue and Acton Drive; callers reported a black male fleeing in an older white vehicle. Bryant was stopped shortly afterward driving an older white Oldsmobile at high speed on Acton Drive.
During the stop, Bryant resisted commands, disclosed he had a concealed-carry permit, and an unloaded 9mm semi-automatic was taken by the officer. Officer observed signs of intoxication (odor, slurred speech, delayed responses) and a hand laceration with fresh blood; gun had wet blood and smelled recently fired; gunpowder present in barrel.
Officer testified Bryant admitted firing five shots less than an hour earlier behind his residence on Elmdale near railroad tracks; at trial Bryant denied firing or making that statement. No shell casings were recovered from the gravel area searched.
Officer issued traffic citations (suspended license, mismatched plates, loud muffler, following too closely) and did not complete OVI paperwork despite intoxication observations; no chemical (blood/alcohol) tests were taken.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bryant)	Held
Whether conviction for discharging a firearm on prohibited premises is against the manifest weight of the evidence	Evidence (admission to firing, weapon recently fired, blood on gun and hand, matching vehicle/location of 911 calls) supports finding Bryant discharged firearm near inhabited dwellings	No eyewitness saw discharge at prohibited premises, no casings recovered, weapon was unloaded at arrest, had concealed-carry permit — evidence insufficient	Affirmed: conviction not against manifest weight; trier of fact reasonably inferred discharge occurred near homes
Whether conviction for using a weapon while intoxicated is against the manifest weight of the evidence	Lay testimony of trained officer (odor, slurred speech, erratic driving, admission of drinking) provides direct evidence of intoxication	No chemical tests were performed; not charged with OVI; conviction rests on circumstantial evidence	Affirmed: officer’s lay testimony and appellant’s admission suffice; conviction not against manifest weight

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard and analysis for manifest-weight challenges)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction; single standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (Ohio 1999) (limitations on drawing inferences that rest entirely on other inferences)
State v. Kulig, 37 Ohio St.2d 157 (Ohio 1974) (prior rule on circumstantial evidence later superseded by Jenks)
State v. Tate, 140 Ohio St.3d 442 (Ohio 2014) (identity may be proved by circumstantial or direct evidence)