State v. Burke, 159 N.E.3d 1272

Defendant Randy Burke, a high-school cross-country/track coach, was indicted in two consolidated cases for alleged inappropriate touching of multiple female students (Counts included gross sexual imposition and sexual imposition).
Case No. 18CR0152 charged multiple counts; the jury convicted Burke of Count One (gross sexual imposition) and Count Three (misdemeanor sexual imposition). Case No. 19CR0096 charged two counts; the jury convicted Burke of Count Two (misdemeanor sexual imposition).
Key trial evidence: testimony that Burke pulled on a runner’s built-in uniform underwear (exposing her underwear and touching her thigh) and photographs showing Burke touching/embracing another student with hands near her hip/chest.
Burke moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29 at the close of the State’s case and later appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence (force for gross sexual imposition; touching an erogenous zone/sexual contact for sexual imposition) and that convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The trial court denied the Crim.R. 29 motions, entered convictions, and sentenced Burke to community control and concurrent local jail terms; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove "force" for gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(1))	State: testimony and demonstration that Burke grabbed/pulled the built‑in underwear, exposing the victim’s underwear and touching her thigh, permitted an inference of force given the parties’ relationship and circumstances.	Burke: the State failed to prove force; evidence was insufficient.	Affirmed: sufficient evidence to infer force; conviction upheld.
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove "sexual contact" (erogenous zone) for sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.06(A)(1))	State: victim testimony plus photos showing Burke touching the victim’s hip and standing behind with a hand under/near her breasts supported a finding of sexual contact.	Burke: the State failed to show he touched an erogenous zone; evidence insufficient.	Affirmed: photos and testimony allowed reasonable juror inference that contact was sexual; conviction upheld.
Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: (implicit) jury credibility determinations should be respected; evidence did not weigh heavily against convictions.	Burke: claimed convictions were against manifest weight but offered no developed, specific argument.	Affirmed: court declined to find a manifest miscarriage of justice and noted appellant’s burden to demonstrate error; convictions stand.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review; sets manifest-weight standard)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (defines sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Williams, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997) (Crim.R.29 and sufficiency principles referenced)
State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118 (1991) (circumstantial evidence has equal probative value as direct evidence)
State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (1992) (force or threat of force can be inferred from surrounding circumstances)
State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (1995) (Crim.R.29/sufficiency standards)
State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (2011) (only exceptional cases justify reversing on manifest weight)
State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 (2010) (force may be inferred from circumstances; supporting appellate precedent)