State v. Elkins
2017 Ohio 7117
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Stephen R. Elkins was indicted on five counts arising from November 17, 2015: burglary (2nd‑degree), abduction (3rd), violating a protection order (3rd), disrupting public services (4th), and domestic violence (4th).
- The victim testified Elkins broke into her home in violation of a five‑year civil protection order, seized her phone, and physically abused and restrained her for several hours, causing visible injuries.
- The State introduced the protection order and the victim’s testimony as primary evidence; a prosecutor’s investigator testified about a cell‑phone text‑sender experiment; Elkins presented one defense witness who claimed Elkins was elsewhere.
- The trial court denied Elkins’s Crim.R. 29 motion at the close of the State’s case; a jury convicted Elkins on all counts and the court sentenced him accordingly.
- On appeal Elkins argued (1) the convictions were based on legally insufficient evidence and (2) the verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence, pointing to alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, the investigator’s cell‑phone testimony, and an alibi witness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Elkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions | State: Victim’s testimony and protection order sufficiently proved elements of charged offenses | Elkins: Investigator’s cell‑phone experiment undermines reliability of text evidence; general challenge to evidence | Court: Denied; viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, rational jury could convict — sufficiency challenge overruled |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: Jury reasonably believed victim; credibility resolves in favor of prosecution | Elkins: Victim inconsistent about hospital, prior injuries, alleged texts, and alibi witness places him elsewhere — jury lost its way | Court: Denied; not an exceptional case warranting reversal; jury credibility determinations upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency review from manifest‑weight review and sets standards)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (defines sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find elements proven beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986) (describes manifest‑weight review and caution that reversals are for exceptional cases)