State v. Goins, 2021 Ohio 1299

Justin Goins was charged with second-degree felony burglary (R.C. 2911.12(A)(2)) and related theft after his sister’s home was burglarized while she was on vacation.
Key evidence: testimony from Catherine Houze (Goins’s ex-fiancée) that Goins admitted the break-in and sold two TVs to gas stations; victim recovered items with Houze’s help; a letter from Goins threatening Houze was admitted.
Houze’s testimony contained inconsistencies and she had a strained relationship with Goins; there was no physical evidence (e.g., video or fingerprints) directly tying Goins to the break-in.
The trial court convicted Goins of second-degree burglary and misdemeanor theft and sentenced him to 6–9 years imprisonment (burglary) plus concurrent six months (theft).
On appeal, Goins argued insufficiency for the (A)(2) element “likely to be present” and that convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The appellate court held the evidence was insufficient to prove the (A)(2) “likely to be present” element, modified the conviction to the lesser-included third-degree burglary under R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), affirmed the theft conviction, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: whether evidence proved element “likely to be present” for R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) second-degree burglary	State relied on Houze’s testimony, victim’s recovery of items, and Goins’s letter to show burglary and that presence was objectively likely	Goins argued no evidence showed anyone was likely to be present while victim was on vacation; thus (A)(2) not proven	Insufficient for (A)(2); court modified conviction to lesser-included (A)(3) third-degree burglary
Manifest weight: whether convictions were against manifest weight of the evidence	State argued testimony (Houze corroborated by victim and letter) was enough and jury/bench did not lose its way	Goins argued Houze was unreliable, inconsistent, and possibly the actual offender; no physical corroboration	Not against manifest weight; appellate court affirmed guilt on burglary (as modified to (A)(3)) and theft

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (manifest-weight standard and review principles)
State v. Cantin, 132 Ohio App.3d 808, 726 N.E.2d 565 (8th Dist. 1999) (defines when a person is “likely to be present” under R.C. 2911.12(A)(2))
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist. 1983) (framework for weighing evidence and when to order a new trial)