State v. Bybee, 2017 Ohio 8869

Victims Joseph Walker and Rameal Eaddy were robbed outside a Cleveland Heights bar around 2:00 a.m. on January 16, 2016; one assailant (Hall) used a gun and the other patted victims and took property.
Police tracked Eaddy’s iPhone via Find My iPhone to a black BMW; officers stopped that BMW ~15–20 minutes after tracking began. Bybee was driving; Hall was passenger and had Eaddy’s phone; victims’ keys and wallet were in the car.
A search of the BMW recovered a loaded semiautomatic handgun from an orange/black backpack (which Bybee said belonged to his girlfriend) and other stolen items; DNA testing was inconclusive or insufficient to link Bybee to the items.
Bybee waived a jury and was tried in a bench trial on counts including aggravated robbery, robbery, kidnapping, theft, weapons offenses, and firearm specifications; he was convicted on most counts and sentenced to nine years (some counts/specifications merged).
Bybee appealed, arguing (1) insufficiency of the evidence to prove his identity as the assailant and (2) that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Bybee (appellant) argument	State (respondent) argument	Held
Sufficiency: Was evidence sufficient to convict Bybee of aggravated robbery, robbery, kidnapping and related offenses?	Victims could not and did not identify him; DNA did not tie him to victims’ property—insufficient to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt.	Circumstantial evidence (cellphone records/texts, video, victims’ identification of Hall, BMW ownership/possession, Bybee driving BMW minutes after robbery, stolen items in car, Bybee’s statements) sufficiently links him to the crimes.	Convictions supported: a rational trier of fact could find identity and elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Manifest weight: Do the convictions shock the conscience or represent a miscarriage of justice?	The evidence weighs against conviction because victims didn’t identify him and DNA was inconclusive.	The totality of credible circumstantial evidence supports the trial court’s resolution; no miscarriage of justice.	No reversal; trial court did not lose its way and verdicts are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review and explains weight-of-evidence standard)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (appellate review as thirteenth juror and standards for granting new trial on weight grounds)
State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (2004) (sufficiency standard framed under Jackson/Jenks)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in Ohio)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (appellate court’s role when reversing based on weight of the evidence)
State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (2005) (circumstantial evidence may support identity and conviction)