State v. Castonguay, 2021 Ohio 3116

Victim David Paxson (72) banked online with Wright-Patt Credit Union (WPCU); he and his wife did not know Castonguay.
On March 18–19, 2020, Paxson discovered unauthorized transfers: about $8,786 from his WPCU credit card and $4,000 from his savings to an account opened in Castonguay’s name.
Castonguay opened a WPCU account in Dayton on March 18, then withdrew cash and obtained a cashier’s check; multiple branches’ surveillance and call recordings tied the transactions to him and to calls impersonating Paxson.
Castonguay was indicted on grand theft and misuse of a credit card (charges later amended to felony-level counts involving an elderly victim); a bench trial was held January 25, 2021.
At trial the State used live video for several out-of-county witnesses citing COVID-19; court convicted and sentenced Castonguay to 12 months; he appealed raising (1) venue sufficiency and (2) confrontation clause challenge to remote testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Venue sufficiency (Crim.R. 29)	Venue proper in Darke County because Paxson’s electronically‑stored funds and access (home computer/phone) were located in Darke County; the transfers were part of a single course of criminal conduct across counties under R.C. 2901.12(H)/(I).	Venue improper because no element of the offenses was physically committed by Castonguay in Darke County.	Affirmed: venue proper. Court found the deprivation of electronically‑stored funds occurred where the victim accessed the accounts (Darke County) and as part of a multi-jurisdictional course of conduct.
Sixth Amendment — remote testimony	Remote testimony justified by public‑health necessity (COVID‑19); witnesses testified under oath, were observed, and were cross‑examined, preserving confrontation protections.	Allowing out‑of‑county witnesses to testify remotely violated the face‑to‑face right; witnesses were merely inconvenienced and could have appeared.	Affirmed: trial court did not err. Court found the record met confrontation reliability requirements and, even if error, remote testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (face‑to‑face confrontation preference, but exception allowed for case‑specific necessity)
State v. Hampton, 983 N.E.2d 324 (Ohio 2012) (venue must be proven; may be established by facts and circumstances)
State v. Draggo, 418 N.E.2d 1343 (Ohio 1981) (recognizing multi‑county venue for mobile modern crimes)
State v. Brown, 99 N.E.3d 1135 (Ohio 2017) (circumstantial evidence may establish venue)
State v. May, 49 N.E.3d 736 (Ohio 2015) (same)
State v. Howard, 156 N.E.3d 433 (Ohio 2020) (upholding remote testimony where health concerns justified it)
State v. Conway, 842 N.E.2d 996 (Ohio 2006) (constitutional errors may be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error standard for federal constitutional claims)
State v. Dickerson, 82 N.E. 969 (Ohio 1907) (venue may be proved by all facts and circumstances)