State v. Greeley, 2018 Ohio 42

Around 3:00 a.m., a homeowner heard loud banging at her back door and called 911; shortly thereafter officers heard similar banging nearby.
Officers found Steven Greeley at a nearby (vacant) house striking a back door with a hammer; he wore a latex glove, dropped the hammer and glove when confronted, and had a backpack with pliers and a wrench.
Greeley gave inconsistent explanations: confronting a girlfriend, asking for condiments for a grill, and later told detectives he carried the hammer for protection and acknowledged it was a weapon.
Greeley was indicted by a grand jury for attempted aggravated burglary (R.C. 2911.11(A)(2)) and tried before a jury, which convicted him; the trial court sentenced him to five years imprisonment.
On appeal Greeley raised three assignments of error: (1) insufficiency of evidence (deadly-weapon element), (2) verdict against manifest weight of the evidence, and (3) failure to give a jury instruction requiring the jury to determine whether the hammer was a deadly weapon.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — deadly-weapon element for attempted aggravated burglary	State: Evidence (hammer used to strike door, Greeley admitted hammer was a weapon) was sufficient to prove deadly weapon	Greeley: State failed to prove the hammer was a “deadly weapon” as required by statute	Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational trier of fact could find the hammer was used/possessed as a deadly weapon
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: Circumstantial evidence and Greeley’s admissions support conviction	Greeley: No direct evidence tying him to homeowner’s attempted break-in; conviction unreasonable	Affirmed — after weighing evidence and credibility, the court found this not an exceptional case warranting reversal
Jury instruction on deadly weapon (and plain-error/forfeiture)	State: Trial court properly instructed jury defining “deadly weapon”; no error	Greeley: Court should have given a specific instruction that jury must determine whether the hammer was a deadly weapon	Affirmed — court defined “deadly weapon” and explained it was a question of fact; Greeley forfeited further challenge by not requesting/objection and did not argue plain error

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review: whether reasonable juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (standard and deference for manifest-weight review)
State v. Vondenberg, 61 Ohio St.2d 285 (1980) (jury may infer deadly nature of instrument from facts and manner of use)