State v. Carrion
2017 Ohio 7043
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 15, 2014, police executed a multi‑agency raid on a fenced Akron property suspected of hosting dogfights; ~45 people were arrested.
- Officers observed people entering the yard and garage after a large retractable gate closed; an armored vehicle later breached the gate and the crowd scattered.
- Crime‑scene evidence included a freestanding, bloodied fighting ring in a garage, bloodied tools, cages, kennels, and vehicles with kennels; officers recovered over $52,000 total and Carrion had >$2,500 on his person.
- Three cooperating witnesses testified they paid admission and watched at least one dogfight in the garage before the raid; animal‑welfare officers recovered eight pit bulls, two with fresh bite wounds.
- Carrion was indicted for dogfighting under R.C. 959.16(A)(5) (attendance/pay to be present) and convicted by a jury; forfeiture spec dropped and he received two years community control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence to convict under R.C. 959.16(A)(5) | State: circumstantial and direct evidence (crowd behavior, fighting ring, money, witness testimony, injured dogs) shows Carrion knowingly was present at a dogfight | Carrion: no evidence he paid, entered the garage, or knew a dogfight was occurring; mere presence insufficient | Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational trier of fact could find Carrion knowingly present; manifest‑weight claim not developed so denied |
| Jury instructions — requested instruction that mere presence insufficient, prohibition on inference‑stacking, and statutory construction (conjunctive vs. disjunctive reading) | Carrion: court should have instructed jurors that mere presence cannot support conviction, barred inference‑stacking, and construed statute to require both payment and presence | State: statute can be read disjunctively; jury properly instructed on statute language, knowledge, and inferences | Affirmed: court correctly instructed under disjunctive reading (pay OR knowingly present); refusing Carrion’s conjunctive instruction would have misstated law; no prejudice shown from denying mere‑presence/inference stacking instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (Ohio 2015) (requested jury instructions should be given if correct statements of law and applicable; appellate review is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (Ohio 1990) (trial court must give jury all instructions relevant and necessary to weigh the evidence)