State v. Fabal, 2021 Ohio 1793

On July 15, 2017 a woman (Nunziato) was struck and killed crossing West Broad Street by a very bright yellow car traveling ~66 mph in a 35 mph zone; the driver fled the scene and the car returned to a garage behind 3344 West Broad Street.
Appellant Andrew Fabal worked as a body‑shop subcontractor at 3344, kept/regularly drove a small yellow car parked in that garage, and had a key to the garage.
Surveillance footage from nearby businesses shows a man close the hood of the yellow car at 3344, drive away, the yellow car striking the pedestrian, then returning to 3344 moments later.
Police recovered the yellow car in the garage, lifted fingerprints from its hood and matched two prints to appellant; a sandal consistent with appellant’s footwear was found near the scene; the car was registered to another person (Abarca).
Appellant was indicted for aggravated vehicular homicide and failure to stop after an accident, convicted after a jury trial, and sentenced to consecutive terms (8 and 3 years; aggregate 11 years). He appealed, arguing insufficiency and that the verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fabal)	Held
Sufficiency: Did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Fabal was the driver who caused the death and fled?	Circumstantial proof (surveillance showing a person who resembled Fabal leaving 3344 in the yellow car, witnesses who knew Fabal, fingerprints on the car hood, sandal at scene, car found in his workplace) establishes identity and elements.	Surveillance is low quality and does not definitively show Fabal; no admission or testimony by Fabal; no interior fingerprints or proof of ownership; witnesses were uncertain or could only say the driver "looked like" him.	Affirmed — viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could find identity proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Manifest weight: Did the jury lose its way such that convictions must be reversed?	The totality of circumstantial evidence and witness testimony supported the jury’s credibility determinations.	Identification evidence was weak and police investigation incomplete; verdict is against the weight of the evidence.	Affirmed — the appellate court defers to the jury’s credibility findings and concludes this is not an exceptional case warranting reversal.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (Ohio standard equating circumstantial and direct evidence for sufficiency review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest‑weight standards)
State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359 (2018) (prosecution need not present every type of evidence; sufficiency examines admitted evidence if believed)
State v. Tate, 140 Ohio St.3d 442 (2014) (identity is an element the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Heinish, 50 Ohio St.3d 231 (1990) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to convict)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (2001) (circumstantial and direct evidence have equal probative value)