State v. Buell, 2016 Ohio 5477

Defendant Lisa Buell, a direct care provider for Residential Group Homes, was observed by a co-worker striking a 52‑year‑old nonverbal resident with Down syndrome three times on the back through a front window. The co‑worker reported the incident to supervisors and police.
The state charged Buell with assault and patient abuse; the trial court dismissed the assault charge but submitted patient abuse (R.C. 2903.34(A)(1)) to the jury.
At trial the state presented eyewitness testimony, testimony about the resident’s atypical crying/behavior that day, and photos of the resident’s back showing red marks the day after the incident; police testimony corroborated sight lines through the window.
Buell denied the conduct, produced witnesses who said the window view was obstructed (Christmas tree, fake snow, blinds) and that Buell did not strike the resident, and provided photos of the obstructed window taken by the defense.
The jury convicted Buell of patient abuse; the court imposed an 18‑month prison term suspended in full and community control, house arrest, fines, and costs. Buell appealed, raising sufficiency/weight, authentication of photos, lay expert testimony, and denial of a jury view.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence	Eyewitness saw Buell hit resident; corroborating testimony on resident’s behavior and photos of marks support conviction	Witnesses and defense photos showed window obstructed; testimony disputed eyewitness credibility	Affirmed: Evidence sufficient and verdict not against manifest weight; jury credited state witnesses
Authentication of photographs	Photos of house/window and of resident were properly authenticated by eyewitness and detective	Some defense photos lacked explicit testimony they were "fair and accurate"; claimed plain error	Affirmed: State’s photos authenticated; defense photos caused no prejudice; no plain error
Lay witness testimony on injury timing	Care staff with experience may testify that bruises/marks can appear the next day; testimony rationally based on perception and helpful	Such testimony requires medical expert opinion, so admission was error	Affirmed: Testimony admissible under Evid.R. 701 as lay opinion based on perception; no plain error
Denial of jury view	Photographs and testimony allowed jurors to assess sight lines; a site visit would not recreate conditions on incident date	Jury view was necessary to assess obstructed window and credibility	Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying jury view; photos sufficed

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 (Ohio 2002) (trial court discretion over jury view)