State v. Cassidy, 2017 Ohio 5677

Michael Cassidy was cited June 9, 2015 for driving under the influence (Toledo Mun. Code 333.03(A)(1)(a)); he pled not guilty and was tried in Toledo Municipal Court.
Officers found Cassidy alone in the driver’s seat of a running car early morning; he appeared passed out, had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, staggered when exiting, and smelled strongly of alcohol.
Cassidy admitted drinking at a club and told officers he drove away from the bar; he refused field sobriety and breath tests and could not say where he was staying.
The trial court convicted Cassidy, sentenced him to 180 days (170 suspended), fines/costs, and a one-year license suspension; incarceration was stayed pending appeal.
On appeal Cassidy argued the State failed to prove “operate” (movement) while intoxicated — asserting he may have been parked where he drank to “sleep it off.” The City relied on circumstantial evidence (engine running, alone in car, officer observations, his admission he drove away).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to show "operate" (movement) while intoxicated	State: Circumstantial evidence (engine running, alone, admission he drove away) shows movement and intoxication	Cassidy: No proof he moved the vehicle after drinking; could have been parked where he drank to sleep it off	Court: Sufficient evidence to infer movement; conviction affirmed
Whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: Officer observations and Cassidy’s statements satisfy persuasion burden	Cassidy: Testimony insufficient to prove intoxicated while operating	Court: Not against manifest weight; trial court reasonably credited the State’s evidence

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review: whether reasonable juror could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (distinction between sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges)