State v. Cook, 2020 Ohio 2844

On April 19, 2018, roommates at 1074 Summit Street were burglarized; Whitney Burris heard glass breaking and Erin Stynchula (who had just left but returned) encountered a man exiting the house who ran into and pushed her off the front landing. She had a 3–5 second, face‑to‑face view in good lighting.
Police were summoned; initial on‑scene description broadcasted. Stynchula later gave a more detailed description to Detective Mark Ryan and said she could identify the perpetrator.
Surveillance from a nearby Walmart showed a man matching the suspect’s description assisting an unidentified woman attempting purchases with a stolen American Express card belonging to Stynchula (last four digits 0704). A still from that footage was posted on the CPD Facebook page.
Detective Ryan prepared a six‑photo array; Stynchula immediately identified appellant’s photo, circled it, and later made an in‑court identification. Defense argued the array was suggestive and tainted by the Facebook posting; the trial court denied suppression.
A jury convicted appellant of aggravated burglary (merged with burglary) and receiving stolen property; he was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling six years. He appealed, claiming insufficient evidence and that convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Identification sufficiency / aggravated burglary	Victim had a direct, 3–5 second, well‑lit face‑to‑face view, concentrated on the face, later identified appellant in a photo array and in court	Descriptions given to officers differed; photo array was flawed/unduly suggestive; prior Facebook posting tainted ID	Conviction upheld: eyewitness ID was sufficient; inconsistencies were minor and for jury to weigh; array not unduly suggestive
Receiving stolen property (possession of stolen card)	Walmart footage shows appellant with the female using Stynchula’s stolen card; at minimum constructive/joint possession established	Footage does not clearly show appellant physically holding the stolen card at checkout	Conviction upheld: circumstantial evidence and appellant’s proximity/support of the card user supports constructive possession

State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 2002) (appellate sufficiency review does not resolve witness credibility)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest‑weight standard and reversal reserved for the exceptional case)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (framework for manifest‑weight review)
Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial judge is best positioned to evaluate witness demeanor and credibility)
State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2001) (photographic lineup need not consist of near‑identical fillers; photos must be reasonably similar)
State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1996) (standards for assessing suggestiveness of photographic arrays)