State v. Burge, 2017 Ohio 5836

James M. Burge, a Lorain County Common Pleas judge (2007–2013), was indicted for falsification and tampering with records based on omissions in his annual financial-disclosure forms for filing years 2011–2013 (covering calendar years 2010–2012).
The omissions concerned his continuing connection to Whiteacre North, LLC and a commercial building (mortgaged by Lorain National Bank) for which Burge remained a guarantor and signatory on the LLC account through 2011 despite an earlier assignment to third parties.
Evidence included bank records showing Burge remained a guarantor and signatory, testimony about disclosure requirements from Ohio Ethics officials, tenant testimony that Burge approved appointed-counsel fee applications from attorneys who leased in the building, and Burge’s June 2011 letter acknowledging reacquisition and transfer of his interest.
A jury convicted Burge of three counts of falsification (R.C. 2921.13(A)(7)) and three counts of tampering with records (R.C. 2913.42(A)(1)); other counts were dismissed before or during trial; the trial court later reduced the tampering felonies to misdemeanors under Pelfrey.
On appeal, Burge challenged sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence and argued the falsification and tampering convictions should merge as allied offenses; the State cross‑appealed the Pelfrey-based reduction but the court dismissed the cross‑appeal as untimely.

Issue	State's Argument	Burge's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support falsification and tampering convictions	Evidence (bank records, Ethics testimony, tenant testimony, Burge’s letters, amended filings) proved omissions and knowing conduct	Omissions were unintentional; no knowledge or culpable interest requiring disclosure	Overruled: Court held evidence sufficient for falsification and tampering convictions
Manifest weight of the evidence	Jury reasonably credited State witnesses and inferences; not an exceptional case warranting reversal	Jury lost its way; evidence favored unintentional omissions	Overruled: Court found verdicts not against manifest weight
Merger of falsification and tampering convictions (allied offenses)	Offenses involve different harms/animus such that they need not merge (State presented separate theories)	Falsification and tampering arose from the same conduct and should merge for each filing year	Sustained in part: Trial court failed to perform required on-the-record allied-offense analysis; remanded for that analysis and determination
State’s cross-appeal of sentence reduction under Pelfrey (timeliness)	State appealed as matter of right under statutory authority	(N/A) — procedural challenge to timeliness raised by court	Cross-appeal dismissed: Court concluded State’s notice was untimely and it lacked jurisdiction to hear it

State v. Pelfrey, 112 Ohio St.3d 422 (Ohio 2007) (sentencing consequences and felony/misdemeanor classification guidance referenced for tampering convictions)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard of review for sufficiency and legal questions)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (framework for allied offenses of similar import analysis)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986) (manifest-weight standard and deference to jury credibility determinations)
State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 1990) (circumstantial evidence and intent proof principles)