State v. Dotson, 2016 Ohio 8085

On Aug. 3, 2014, Edward Tiggs was found bloodied and unconscious in a Wendy’s parking lot; he suffered severe head injuries and long‑term impairment.
Tiggs had been riding in a car with Cortez Dotson and Dwan Earl earlier that night; Tiggs had new jeans with a hidden $100 bill that went missing after the incident.
Items from the scene and from Dotson (shoes, photographs of hand scars) were seized; DNA testing found Dotson’s DNA in the inside of Tiggs’ pants pockets and a shoeprint on Tiggs’ T‑shirt that could not eliminate Dotson’s shoes.
Dotson was indicted for felonious assault and aggravated robbery; he moved to suppress statements and physical evidence, made a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, and challenged costs and the weight of the evidence.
The trial court suppressed post‑invocation statements but denied suppression of the hand photographs and seizure of shoes; a jury convicted Dotson of both charges. The Sixth District affirmed and ordered a nunc pro tunc correction of a scrivener’s error in the judgment entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dotson)	Held
1. Suppression of photos of hands and seizure of shoes	Evidence was properly seized/photographed: plain view and search incident to lawful arrest	Photos/shoe seizure were warrantless and obtained after invocation of counsel; should be suppressed	Denied suppression; photographs allowed under plain view and custody; shoes seized as search incident to arrest
2. Imposition of prosecution costs	R.C. 2947.23 requires assessment of costs against convicted defendants without a hearing	Court should have considered Dotson’s ability to pay before imposing costs (esp. attorney fees)	Costs of prosecution may be imposed without a hearing; trial court did not err (no attorney‑fee costs imposed)
3. Crim.R. 29 motion / sufficiency of evidence	Circumstantial evidence (DNA in pants pocket, missing money, shoeprint, scars, case facts) supports conviction	State failed to prove Dotson was the perpetrator; evidence speculative and non‑direct	Denied motion; evidence sufficient for a rational trier of fact to convict
4. Manifest weight of the evidence	Jury reasonably resolved inconsistencies; circumstantial evidence supported verdict	Verdict against manifest weight — evidence speculative, alternative explanations, gaps in forensic links	Affirmed; jury did not lose its way and convictions were not a manifest miscarriage of justice

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (trial‑court factual findings on suppression get deference; appellate courts review legal conclusions de novo)
State v. Posey, 40 Ohio St.3d 420 (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable except for established exceptions)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest‑weight standard and when reversal is warranted)
State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (sufficiency standard: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (trial court as factfinder on suppression issues)
State v. Walker, 55 Ohio St.2d 208 (appellate review does not weigh evidence for sufficiency challenges)
State v. Codeluppi, 139 Ohio St.3d 165 (deference to trial court credibility determinations on suppression)